Cross-Straits Future Requires Greater Imagination
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 13, 2014
Summary: During the recent Wang Zhang meeting the Mainland media removed the
scare quotes when referring to Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council Leader
Wang Yu-chi. If during a Ma Xi meeting they use the expression "Taiwan
authorities leader Ma Ying-jeou," that too will be perfectly natural. As
long as we have the "big roof concept of China," there should be no
obstacles to a Ma Xi meeting. Wang Yu-chi spoke at the Sun Yat-sen
Mausoleum. He essentially declared that "The Republic of China is an
integral part of the one China framework." This may well be interpreted
as tentative acceptance of the " big roof concept of China." How is one
to make sense of all these loose ends? That will require greater
imagination.
Full text below:
MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi visited the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum. He read aloud the official Republic of China funeral oration. He gave a speech at BoAi Plaza, saying that Sun Yat-sen founded the Republic of China, Asia's first democratic republic 103 years ago.
When Chairman Wang spoke, the accompanying officials from Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office deliberately stood to one side. Mainland Chinese on the plaza gathered around to listen. Wang Yu-chi's actions were part of a tacit understanding with the Beijing authorities. This was a major move that marks a turning point in cross-strait relations. It inspires greater confidence in future cross-strait relations. This scenario, assuming it was the result of an understanding reached between the two sides, was a bold and imaginative move by Xi Jinping and Zhang Zhijun.
The Wang Zhang meeting has now adjourned. Zhang Zhijun made a comment that has attracted considerable attention. He said, "To overcome (cross-strait) barriers, we must use our imagination. Not just this (Wang Zhang) meeting, but future cross-strait relations require greater imagination."
Zhang's comment included the phrase "Not just this (Wang Zhang) meeting." Observers have concluded that what Zhang meant was that "a future Ma Xi meeting" will also require greater imagination. We need not interpret Zhang's comment this way. But Zhang did say that the two sides are currently not exercising enough imagination, and that the future "will require greater imagination."
Take negotiations. The 'Wang Zhang meeting made less progress than other recent bilateral talks. The discussion of most issues began with hollow terms as "concrete implementation," "pragmatic handling," "early solution," or "explore possible avenues." On the other hand, Wang and Zhang agreed to address each other by their official titles. They deliberately characterized the meeting as the very first between "one head of government and another." They began the transition from middle men to direct government to government contacts. That is the most significant political statement to emerge from this meeting.
Wang Yu-chi's speech at the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum used the official language of the Republican era and represented the views of the "Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council." Wang also delivered an official speech at Nanjing University. This shows that the Wang Zhang meeting has already exceeded most peoples' expectations. Someone once said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." Will future historians say that Chairman Wang and Director Zhang changed the cross-strait scenario and the destiny of the two sides?
Consider what the Wang Zhang meeting has already accomplished. Wang and Zhang addressed each other by their official titles. This affirmed the two sides' jurisdiction. Wang Yu-chi visited the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum and made an explicit reference to the Republic of China's 103 year long existence. This affirmed the two sides' sovereignty. This scenario amounts to an implicit understanding between the two sides. It means that cross-strait relations are undergoing transition. They are entering a "non-repudiation of each other's sovereignty" and "acknowledgement of each other's jurisdiction" stage. Zhang said "future cross-strait relations require greater imagination." This, perhaps, is precisely the sort of imagination that is required.
During the recent Wang Zhang meeting, the Beijing authorities approached the matter of Wang Yu-chi's official title with caution. Director Zhang Zhijun verbally addressed Wang as "Chairman Wang" or "Chairman Yu-chi." But the Mainland media referred to Wang as "Wang Yu-chi, the head of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council." It accepted the term "Mainland Affairs Council," but held back on using the title "chairman." This arrangement suggests that the Mainland media may accept the ROC government's official titles, and that it will no longer use scare quotes around these titles. Not using official titles, but instead using "Taiwan side leader Chiang Yi-hua" also amounts to a major breakthrough. By contrast, Wang Yu-chi's address at the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum used Republican era official titles and the national title of the Republic of China. The TAO said "Sun's achievements are a matter of historical record." The recent Wang Zhang meeting, which addressed official titles, jurisdiction, and sovereignty, constitutes an imaginative breakthrough. Its significance is extraordinary.
Addressing each other by their official titles is not merely a matter of jurisdiction. Mere "mutual recognition of the other's jurisdiction" does not address the real problem. One must also deal with the matter of sovereignty. Merely addressing each other by their official titles could even be misinterpreted as "one country on each side." Therefore in order to avoid having the use of official titles misinterpreted as "one country on each side," one must first deal with "cross-strait political relations under conditions in which the nation has yet to be reunified." This is the language of the CCP 18th National Congress Political Report.
The solution to the problem is the "big roof concept of China." Under the big roof concept of China, both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China belong to one China. Their sovereignty both overlaps and coincides.
If the two sides together accept the "big roof concept of China," then the ROC and the PRC are both "part of China." In that case, when officials from the two sides address each other by their official titles, it will not lead to the presumption of "one country on each side." Instead, it will take place under and within the "big roof concept of China."
During the recent Wang Zhang meeting the Mainland media removed the scare quotes when referring to Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council Leader Wang Yu-chi. If during a Ma Xi meeting they use the expression "Taiwan authorities leader Ma Ying-jeou," that too will be perfectly natural. As long as we have the "big roof concept of China," there should be no obstacles to a Ma Xi meeting. Wang Yu-chi spoke at the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum. He essentially declared that "The Republic of China is an integral part of the one China framework." This may well be interpreted as tentative acceptance of the " big roof concept of China." How is one to make sense of all these loose ends? That will require greater imagination.
兩岸未來 需要更大的想像力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.13 04:02 am
陸委會主委王郁琦謁中山陵，宣讀民國紀元及署名官銜的祭文，並在博愛廣場發表談話稱，國父孫中山創建的亞洲第一個民主共和國中華民國，現在已一○三年了。
王主委談話時，陪同的北京國台辦官員刻意避開，廣場上的大陸民眾則圍聚聆聽。若王郁琦此一動作是在北京當局的默契之中，這將是一個扭轉兩岸格局的大動作，也令人對兩岸未來的新境界增添了信心。這個場景，若是出自雙方默契，真堪謂是習近平與張志軍的一個充滿想像空間的大手筆。
王張會落幕，張志軍留下了餘音繞梁的一句話。他說：「要破解（兩岸）一些難題的話，我們必須要有一點想像力；不僅是這樣的會見（王張會），對兩岸未來的發展，也應有更大的想像力。」
由於他話中帶到「不僅是王張會」，因而此語被解讀為是對「未來的馬習會」應有更大的想像力。但即使不作此解，這句話應在說：兩岸現在的想像力不夠，面對未來「應有更大的想像力」。
就議題的談判言，此次王張會也許是近年雙邊會談中進展最小的一次。幾乎所有的議題皆以「具體落實」、「務實處理」、「盡早解決」或「探討可行途徑」等懸念語詞帶過。對照之下，雙方達成了王張二人互稱官銜的協議，與刻意呈現「政府首長對政府首長」首次會談的場景，及啟動了白手套與政府之間的換軌工程，即儼然成為舉行此會的主要政治宣示。
何況，王郁琦的謁中山陵祭文，是以民國紀元及「大陸委員會主任委員」的官銜署名，又以正式官銜在南京大學演說；在在顯示，這次王張會的表現已超越了一般人的想像。有人說，給我一個支點，我就可以撐起整個地球；未來的歷史會不會說，從互稱王主委、張主任開始，你就可以改變兩岸的格局與命運？
王張會發展至今，王張互稱官銜涉及了治權層次；而王郁琦在中山陵說中華民國一○三年，則關乎主權層次。倘若這個全景，皆是在雙方的默契之中，則兩岸關係即有可能從「主權互不承認／治權互不否認」的階段，進入「主權互不否認／治權相互承認」的境界。張志軍說「兩岸未來應有更大的想像力」，莫非正是需要這方面的想像力？
此次王張會中，北京當局對王郁琦的官銜仍是「謹慎處理」。張志軍主任在口頭上稱「王主委」、「郁琦主委」；但大陸媒體則稱「台灣方面陸委會負責人王郁琦」，也就是接受了「陸委會」，卻保留了「主委」。這樣的安排，若顯示大陸媒體未來亦可接受中華民國政府其他部會的官稱，不再「加引號」，但不稱官銜，如稱作「台灣方面行政院負責人江宜樺」，亦是重大的突破。相較而言，王郁琦以民國紀元與官銜及直稱國父與中華民國國號的謁陵動作，如果亦在國台辦「孫中山的豐功偉業已經載入史冊」的默認範圍，則此次王張會可謂一舉對兩岸的「稱謂論述／治權論述／主權論述」皆有了想像力破表的試探。如此，豈不是意義非凡？
「互稱官銜」不只是「治權論述」的問題，因而若只是「相互承認治權」，仍不能解決問題；因為，如果不能往上處理「主權論述」，則「互稱官銜」即可能呈現「一邊一國」。於是，為了不使「互稱官銜」流為「一邊一國」，即須首先處理「國家尚未統一的兩岸政治關係」（中共十八大政治報告語）。
解決的方案即是「大屋頂中國」：在大屋頂中國下，中華民國和中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，同屬主權相互含蘊並共同合成的「一個中國」。
兩岸若是共同接受一個「大屋頂中國」，使中華民國與中華人民共和國皆為「一部分的中國」，雙方官員互稱官銜，即不致呈現「一邊一國」，而是同在「一個大屋頂中國」之下及之內。
此次王張會，大陸媒體至少已將陸委會「去引號」；則既可稱「台灣方面陸委會負責人王郁琦」，則若在馬習會稱「台灣當局領導人馬英九」，亦是順理成章。只要有「大屋頂中國」的念想，馬習會也就沒有障礙。至於王郁琦的中山陵談話，若可視為在主張「中華民國是一中架構中不可或缺的一部分」，則也不妨看成對「大屋頂中國」的探索。這些端緒將如何發展，都需要更大的想像力。
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Ma Ying-jeou and King Pu-tsung: The Last Hurrah
Ma Ying-jeou and King Pu-tsung: The Last Hurrah
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 12, 2014
Summary: Intentionally or unintentionally, King Pu-tsung has acquired an image as a "rescue expert." Ma Ying-jeou is regarded as the beneficiary of his rescue efforts. King Pu-tsung is regarded as Ma's rescuer. This is an honor for King, and an embarrassment for Ma. The public has concerns. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. Perhaps he can help return the media spotlight to the president. King Pu-tsung has a shiny resume and a new title. But will this be enough to pull off a miracle during their last hurrah?
Full text below:
Intentionally or unintentionally, King Pu-tsung has acquired an image as a "rescue expert." Ma Ying-jeou is regarded as the beneficiary of his rescue efforts. King Pu-tsung is regarded as Ma's rescuer. This is an honor for King, and an embarrassment for Ma.
King Pu-tsung said he "would not join the cabinet, would not become part of the government." When Ma Ying-jeou became president, King's first position was KMT Secretary-General. He did not join the cabinet. He did not become part of the government. But he steered the government and the cabinet for one year and one month. As KMT Secretary-General, his appointment as ROC representative to the US was considered a lateral move. It was described as "outside the cabinet," He remained at his post for only five months. King Pu-tsung is now returning home to become part of the government, as Secretary General of the National Security Council.
When King Pu -tsung said he "would not join the cabinet, would not become part of the government " he probably meant it. But serving as KMT Secretary-General, ROC Representative to the US, and Secretary General of the National Security Council may have given him a taste for office. They may have rationalized his vow "not to join the cabinet, not to become part of the government." As a result, King Pu-tsung has filled out his resume rather nicely. But what now?
King Pu-tsung will become Secretary General of the NSC. A variety of explanations have be offered for this. Explanation 1. It is all for the sake of the election, right? King Pu-tsung has denied such speculation. He said, "2012 was my last election campaign." The KMT is not optimistic about the 2014 seven in one elections. In 2016 Ma Ying-jeou will not be running. Therefore King Pu-tsung's declaration that he will not take part in the campaign may be true. Explanation 2. It us all for the sake of the TPP and RCEP, right? As a political prospect, this could provide a "shot in the arm." But in an actual campaign, the clash of interests it would provoke might well outweigh several trade in services agreements. Explanation 3. Might it be for the sake of the Ma Xi meeting? This is unlikely, since the prospect of a Ma Xi meeting could evaporate before autumn.
In any case, King Pu-tsung will serve as Secretary General of the NSC. He probably wants to join President Ma in his "last hurrah." The first challenge is 2016. The KMT cannot afford to lose. Ma Ying-jeou will not be the 2016 presidential candidate. But if the KMT loses the 2016 presidential election, Ma's legacy will lose its base of support. King Pu-tsung might not direct the KMT's campaign during the seven in one elections and the 2016 general election. But Ma Ying-jeou has an unshirkable duty to ensure Kuomintang victories in both. Therefore King Pu-tsung must disavow any part in the seven in one elections and the 2016 general election. In fact of course, he remains joined to them at the hip.
Let us back up a moment. Suppose Ma fails to meet the first challenge? In other words, suppose the KMT loses the 2016 general election? The second challenge is to preserve Ma Ying-jeou's legacy. Above all, Ma must do two things. One. He must leave behind an irreversible policy framework pertaining to national identity and cross-strait relations. In fact, as long as the policy is correct, it will be irreversible. Therefore the Ma Xi meeting is the goal. Two. He must leave behind an irreversible policy framework for free trade and globalization. If Taiwan forsakes liberalization, politically and economically it will not survive, Therefore the TPP and RCEP are the goals. This is Ma's last-ditch battle. King Pu-tsung cannot remain on the sidelines.
From this perspective let us look at President Ma Ying-jeou's last hurrah. The seven in one elections are far from assured. Warning sirens have sounded on the 2016 general election. The TPP and RCEP face a bumpy road ahead. The Ma Xi meeting depends on others.
The expression "the affairs of the nation are relentless" is not widely used. But it has become an accurate description of today's reality. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. His action highlights the government's dilemma. It magnifies Ma's helplessness. It exaggerates King Pu-tsung's personal worth and ability. Ma Ying-jeou's difficulties did not arise overnight. They cannot be reversed during the two years left in his term. Today's dilemma is the result of internal and external political and economic structural factors. There are no quick fixes. Today's plight is not necessarily the result of any major errors on the part of Ma Ying-jeou. Rather it is the result of the public's stereotyped and difficult to change impressions of him. Ma Ying-jeou and King Pu-tsung made ideal campaign partners. Today they face the 2016 general election. Ma Ying-jeou may not be the candidate, but he must not lose. This is a campaign that Ma and King have never before waged. This is a campaign that definitely cannot be won with a few King style campaign ads.
This is Ma Ying-jeou's last-ditch battle. If the perception is that only King Pu-tsung can save the day, that is not a positive message. The two men must overcome the first challenge. They must not allow themselves to be satirized as the "King Ma System." King must no longer serve as Ma's "avatar." As an aide, he must play a complementary role. He must not use Ma's authority to polish his own halo. Ma Ying-jeou finds himself in a crisis of authority. King must help Ma recoup his political support. He must change public indifference and antipathy toward President Ma into empathy and goodwill. Today's dilemma and chaos makes it impossible to attend to all the details. All one can do is make a dent in the larger framework. Therefore the concern of his last hurrah must be the TPP, RCEP, cross-strait policy and national identity.
The public has concerns. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. Perhaps he can help return the media spotlight to the president. King Pu-tsung has a shiny resume and a new title. But will this be enough to pull off a miracle during their last hurrah?
馬英九和金溥聰的最後一哩
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.12 02:29 am
有心或無意，金溥聰擁有了「救駕勤王」的形象。馬英九被視為受援者，金溥聰被視為施救者。這是金的光彩，馬的尷尬。
金溥聰曾說：「不入閣，不入府」。馬英九當了總統後，金的第一個位子是國民黨秘書長，未入閣、未入府，卻是位駕府閣，幹了一年一個月；有了國民黨秘書長這個高度，出任駐美代表就被視為水平移動，可謂「境外入閣」，也只幹了一年五個月。現在，金溥聰要回國入府出任國安會秘書長了。
當金溥聰說「不入閣、不入府」時，也許真的是無意仕途；但後來這段由黨秘書長繞經駐美代表、終而出任國安會秘書長的過程，卻像是「沾醬油」，彷彿只是為了「不入閣、不入府」的承諾打個圓場。於是，金溥聰有了一張漂亮的履歷表。但是，然後呢？
金溥聰任國安會秘書長，出現種種說法。說法一，都是為了選舉吧？金溥聰否認此論，他說：「二○一二是我最後一次選舉操盤。」的確，國民黨在二○一四的七合一不看好，二○一六馬英九也不選了；因此，金溥聰說不搞選舉，形式上或許沒錯。說法二，是為了TPP與RCEP吧？但這個議題或可作為「打興奮劑」的政治願景，若是真槍實彈幹起來，其引爆的利害衝突，恐將大過好幾個《服貿協議》。說法三，是為了馬習會嗎？但馬習會在入秋前即可能化作泡影。
無論如何，金溥聰出任國安會秘書長，想必是要伴馬總統走完這「最後一哩」。第一層挑戰是二○一六不能輸：馬英九不是二○一六的總統候選人，但若國民黨輸掉二○一六，馬的歷史定位自亦失所依託。金溥聰可能不會為國民黨的七合一及二○一六的選戰實際「操盤」，但馬英九對國民黨在七合一及二○一六選舉的勝敗卻是責無旁貸；那麼，金溥聰也只能說七合一及二○一六的選舉在體制職務上與他無關，但其實卻是骨肉相連。
退一步言，倘若馬自第一層挑戰敗下，也就是國民黨如果輸掉了二○一六大選，第二層挑戰則是要保全馬英九的政治遺產。最重要者有二：一、留下無可翻轉的國家認同及兩岸政策架構（其實，只要政策正確，即無可翻轉），因此，馬習會是目標；二、留下無可翻轉的自由經貿體系全球化的走向（台灣捨自由化，在政治經濟上均無生路），因此，TPP與RCEP是目標。這是馬英九的最後一搏，金溥聰自不可能置身局外。
由此看馬英九總統的最後一哩：七合一岌岌不保，二○一六警笛已鳴，TPP、RCEP路途坎坷，馬習會則操之在人。
國事蜩螗是一句生僻成語，如今卻成為共見共知的現實寫照。金溥聰此時回國入府，不啻更凸顯了政局的困窘；這一方面放大了馬英九的無助，另一方面也不成比例地誇張了金溥聰的身價與能耐。馬英九今日困境不是一日造成，因此不易在這最後兩年翻轉；而今日困境主要是內外的政經結構因素使然，因此也不易以技術手段解決。甚至，今日困境亦未必是馬英九在執政上犯了什麼重大過錯，而是因為人民對馬英九眾口鑠金的刻板印象已難改變。馬英九與金溥聰是選戰的最佳夥伴，如今將面臨的二○一六大選，卻是馬英九非候選人但更加不能輸的選戰，這是馬金二人皆未打過的選戰，而這場選戰絕非憑幾部「金氏經典選舉廣告」就能致勝。
馬英九的最後一搏，如果被視為身邊只剩金溥聰或非金溥聰不可，這絕非正面的訊息。二人必須打破的第一個困境，就是不能被「金馬體制」的譏嘲纏住；金不能再作馬的「分身」，而必須發揮作為幕僚的「互補」角色。亦即，不可借馬的權力去磨亮「金小刀」，而是要為陷入權力危機的馬英九找回政治支持；也就是必須試將民間對馬總統的「無感」、「惡感」，轉變為「有感」、「好感」。再者，如今這個難局與亂局，已無可能照顧所有的細節，而只能設法在「大結構」上作出成績，因此，TPP、RCEP的憧憬，與兩岸政策及國家認同的定向，仍應是這最後一哩的主要關注。
國人的疑問是：金溥聰返國入府，或許有助於把總統府再次拉回到新聞視聽的焦點，但只憑在金溥聰的漂亮履歷表再加一個新頭銜，就能使這最後一哩出現什麼奇蹟嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 12, 2014
Summary: Intentionally or unintentionally, King Pu-tsung has acquired an image as a "rescue expert." Ma Ying-jeou is regarded as the beneficiary of his rescue efforts. King Pu-tsung is regarded as Ma's rescuer. This is an honor for King, and an embarrassment for Ma. The public has concerns. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. Perhaps he can help return the media spotlight to the president. King Pu-tsung has a shiny resume and a new title. But will this be enough to pull off a miracle during their last hurrah?
Full text below:
Intentionally or unintentionally, King Pu-tsung has acquired an image as a "rescue expert." Ma Ying-jeou is regarded as the beneficiary of his rescue efforts. King Pu-tsung is regarded as Ma's rescuer. This is an honor for King, and an embarrassment for Ma.
King Pu-tsung said he "would not join the cabinet, would not become part of the government." When Ma Ying-jeou became president, King's first position was KMT Secretary-General. He did not join the cabinet. He did not become part of the government. But he steered the government and the cabinet for one year and one month. As KMT Secretary-General, his appointment as ROC representative to the US was considered a lateral move. It was described as "outside the cabinet," He remained at his post for only five months. King Pu-tsung is now returning home to become part of the government, as Secretary General of the National Security Council.
When King Pu -tsung said he "would not join the cabinet, would not become part of the government " he probably meant it. But serving as KMT Secretary-General, ROC Representative to the US, and Secretary General of the National Security Council may have given him a taste for office. They may have rationalized his vow "not to join the cabinet, not to become part of the government." As a result, King Pu-tsung has filled out his resume rather nicely. But what now?
King Pu-tsung will become Secretary General of the NSC. A variety of explanations have be offered for this. Explanation 1. It is all for the sake of the election, right? King Pu-tsung has denied such speculation. He said, "2012 was my last election campaign." The KMT is not optimistic about the 2014 seven in one elections. In 2016 Ma Ying-jeou will not be running. Therefore King Pu-tsung's declaration that he will not take part in the campaign may be true. Explanation 2. It us all for the sake of the TPP and RCEP, right? As a political prospect, this could provide a "shot in the arm." But in an actual campaign, the clash of interests it would provoke might well outweigh several trade in services agreements. Explanation 3. Might it be for the sake of the Ma Xi meeting? This is unlikely, since the prospect of a Ma Xi meeting could evaporate before autumn.
In any case, King Pu-tsung will serve as Secretary General of the NSC. He probably wants to join President Ma in his "last hurrah." The first challenge is 2016. The KMT cannot afford to lose. Ma Ying-jeou will not be the 2016 presidential candidate. But if the KMT loses the 2016 presidential election, Ma's legacy will lose its base of support. King Pu-tsung might not direct the KMT's campaign during the seven in one elections and the 2016 general election. But Ma Ying-jeou has an unshirkable duty to ensure Kuomintang victories in both. Therefore King Pu-tsung must disavow any part in the seven in one elections and the 2016 general election. In fact of course, he remains joined to them at the hip.
Let us back up a moment. Suppose Ma fails to meet the first challenge? In other words, suppose the KMT loses the 2016 general election? The second challenge is to preserve Ma Ying-jeou's legacy. Above all, Ma must do two things. One. He must leave behind an irreversible policy framework pertaining to national identity and cross-strait relations. In fact, as long as the policy is correct, it will be irreversible. Therefore the Ma Xi meeting is the goal. Two. He must leave behind an irreversible policy framework for free trade and globalization. If Taiwan forsakes liberalization, politically and economically it will not survive, Therefore the TPP and RCEP are the goals. This is Ma's last-ditch battle. King Pu-tsung cannot remain on the sidelines.
From this perspective let us look at President Ma Ying-jeou's last hurrah. The seven in one elections are far from assured. Warning sirens have sounded on the 2016 general election. The TPP and RCEP face a bumpy road ahead. The Ma Xi meeting depends on others.
The expression "the affairs of the nation are relentless" is not widely used. But it has become an accurate description of today's reality. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. His action highlights the government's dilemma. It magnifies Ma's helplessness. It exaggerates King Pu-tsung's personal worth and ability. Ma Ying-jeou's difficulties did not arise overnight. They cannot be reversed during the two years left in his term. Today's dilemma is the result of internal and external political and economic structural factors. There are no quick fixes. Today's plight is not necessarily the result of any major errors on the part of Ma Ying-jeou. Rather it is the result of the public's stereotyped and difficult to change impressions of him. Ma Ying-jeou and King Pu-tsung made ideal campaign partners. Today they face the 2016 general election. Ma Ying-jeou may not be the candidate, but he must not lose. This is a campaign that Ma and King have never before waged. This is a campaign that definitely cannot be won with a few King style campaign ads.
This is Ma Ying-jeou's last-ditch battle. If the perception is that only King Pu-tsung can save the day, that is not a positive message. The two men must overcome the first challenge. They must not allow themselves to be satirized as the "King Ma System." King must no longer serve as Ma's "avatar." As an aide, he must play a complementary role. He must not use Ma's authority to polish his own halo. Ma Ying-jeou finds himself in a crisis of authority. King must help Ma recoup his political support. He must change public indifference and antipathy toward President Ma into empathy and goodwill. Today's dilemma and chaos makes it impossible to attend to all the details. All one can do is make a dent in the larger framework. Therefore the concern of his last hurrah must be the TPP, RCEP, cross-strait policy and national identity.
The public has concerns. King Pu-tsung is returning home and becoming part of the government. Perhaps he can help return the media spotlight to the president. King Pu-tsung has a shiny resume and a new title. But will this be enough to pull off a miracle during their last hurrah?
馬英九和金溥聰的最後一哩
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.12 02:29 am
有心或無意，金溥聰擁有了「救駕勤王」的形象。馬英九被視為受援者，金溥聰被視為施救者。這是金的光彩，馬的尷尬。
金溥聰曾說：「不入閣，不入府」。馬英九當了總統後，金的第一個位子是國民黨秘書長，未入閣、未入府，卻是位駕府閣，幹了一年一個月；有了國民黨秘書長這個高度，出任駐美代表就被視為水平移動，可謂「境外入閣」，也只幹了一年五個月。現在，金溥聰要回國入府出任國安會秘書長了。
當金溥聰說「不入閣、不入府」時，也許真的是無意仕途；但後來這段由黨秘書長繞經駐美代表、終而出任國安會秘書長的過程，卻像是「沾醬油」，彷彿只是為了「不入閣、不入府」的承諾打個圓場。於是，金溥聰有了一張漂亮的履歷表。但是，然後呢？
金溥聰任國安會秘書長，出現種種說法。說法一，都是為了選舉吧？金溥聰否認此論，他說：「二○一二是我最後一次選舉操盤。」的確，國民黨在二○一四的七合一不看好，二○一六馬英九也不選了；因此，金溥聰說不搞選舉，形式上或許沒錯。說法二，是為了TPP與RCEP吧？但這個議題或可作為「打興奮劑」的政治願景，若是真槍實彈幹起來，其引爆的利害衝突，恐將大過好幾個《服貿協議》。說法三，是為了馬習會嗎？但馬習會在入秋前即可能化作泡影。
無論如何，金溥聰出任國安會秘書長，想必是要伴馬總統走完這「最後一哩」。第一層挑戰是二○一六不能輸：馬英九不是二○一六的總統候選人，但若國民黨輸掉二○一六，馬的歷史定位自亦失所依託。金溥聰可能不會為國民黨的七合一及二○一六的選戰實際「操盤」，但馬英九對國民黨在七合一及二○一六選舉的勝敗卻是責無旁貸；那麼，金溥聰也只能說七合一及二○一六的選舉在體制職務上與他無關，但其實卻是骨肉相連。
退一步言，倘若馬自第一層挑戰敗下，也就是國民黨如果輸掉了二○一六大選，第二層挑戰則是要保全馬英九的政治遺產。最重要者有二：一、留下無可翻轉的國家認同及兩岸政策架構（其實，只要政策正確，即無可翻轉），因此，馬習會是目標；二、留下無可翻轉的自由經貿體系全球化的走向（台灣捨自由化，在政治經濟上均無生路），因此，TPP與RCEP是目標。這是馬英九的最後一搏，金溥聰自不可能置身局外。
由此看馬英九總統的最後一哩：七合一岌岌不保，二○一六警笛已鳴，TPP、RCEP路途坎坷，馬習會則操之在人。
國事蜩螗是一句生僻成語，如今卻成為共見共知的現實寫照。金溥聰此時回國入府，不啻更凸顯了政局的困窘；這一方面放大了馬英九的無助，另一方面也不成比例地誇張了金溥聰的身價與能耐。馬英九今日困境不是一日造成，因此不易在這最後兩年翻轉；而今日困境主要是內外的政經結構因素使然，因此也不易以技術手段解決。甚至，今日困境亦未必是馬英九在執政上犯了什麼重大過錯，而是因為人民對馬英九眾口鑠金的刻板印象已難改變。馬英九與金溥聰是選戰的最佳夥伴，如今將面臨的二○一六大選，卻是馬英九非候選人但更加不能輸的選戰，這是馬金二人皆未打過的選戰，而這場選戰絕非憑幾部「金氏經典選舉廣告」就能致勝。
馬英九的最後一搏，如果被視為身邊只剩金溥聰或非金溥聰不可，這絕非正面的訊息。二人必須打破的第一個困境，就是不能被「金馬體制」的譏嘲纏住；金不能再作馬的「分身」，而必須發揮作為幕僚的「互補」角色。亦即，不可借馬的權力去磨亮「金小刀」，而是要為陷入權力危機的馬英九找回政治支持；也就是必須試將民間對馬總統的「無感」、「惡感」，轉變為「有感」、「好感」。再者，如今這個難局與亂局，已無可能照顧所有的細節，而只能設法在「大結構」上作出成績，因此，TPP、RCEP的憧憬，與兩岸政策及國家認同的定向，仍應是這最後一哩的主要關注。
國人的疑問是：金溥聰返國入府，或許有助於把總統府再次拉回到新聞視聽的焦點，但只憑在金溥聰的漂亮履歷表再加一個新頭銜，就能使這最後一哩出現什麼奇蹟嗎？
Monday, February 10, 2014
Wang Zhang Meeting: Creating the Conditions for a Ma Xi Meeting
Wang Zhang Meeting: Creating the Conditions for a Ma Xi Meeting
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 10, 2014
Summary: Following the Wang Zhang meeting, Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan later this year. Taiwan will be in the grip of election fever. The two sides have much to do. Where there is a will, there is a way. The two sides must take full advantage of creative thinking and strategic ambiguity. The authorities on both sides must consider the big picture. They must consider long term development from a strategic and national perspective. They must continue their efforts to make a Ma Xi meeting a reality in November.
Full text below:
MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi departed today. He will arrive on the Mainland for a 4-day visit. He will hold talks with the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun. The two sides of the Strait have been ruled separately for over 60 years. The SEF and ARATS have interacted with each other through "white gloves," or middlemen. This is the first time top officials from the two sides' cross-strait affairs agencies have held formal talks. The political significance cannot be overstated, and has become the focus of public concern.
Some are calling this a major breakthrough in cross-strait relations. Some regard it as a major milestone. Cross-strait relations are developing in a healthy, positive, and forward looking way. But this newspaper has greater expectations. We hope that from this day forth, the two sides can enjoy a more mature, stable, and rational relationship, one that is irreversible and not subject to manipulation, one that is stable and immune to changes in the ruling party. Once such a mechanism for interaction is established, it will be a blessing not only for Taiwan, but for both sides. It will also benefit regional security and stability. It should be welcomed by all.
Before Wang and Zhang formally meet, the two sides will communicate and coordinate behind the scenes. Taiwan has its concerns. The Mainland has its requirements. Where the two sides will meet, when they will meet, what issues they will discuss, what the object of the meeting will be, which agencies will participate, what speeches will be delivered, and what protocol will be followed, will all be planned in advance. How can we express our position in a manner that is neither obsequious nor provocative? That is a question that will require careful consideration. Both sides are "feeling the stones while crossing the river." They are carefully performing cost benefit analysis. They will have to undergo a period of trial and error. If the meeting finally materializes, it will mean representatives from both sides demonstrated goodwill, sincerity, and flexibility. It will mean they were able to respect each other and compromise with each other. It will surely merit recognition.
As Taipei officials said, the Wang Zhang meeting requires equality, dignity and mutual trust. The host may follow the guest's lead. Or the guest may follow the host's lead. For now, all that is required is that observers not draw the wrong conclusions, or internal politics upset the apple cart. Apparently neither side wants to make life difficult for the other, provoke suspicions in the other, or set a trap for the other. Neither side wants to appear smug. Both want to accomodate the other side's reasonable requests. This is the only way the two sides can overcome the odds and fulfill their original intention of having the two men meet. This is helpful to the healthy development of cross-strait relations. The authorities on both sides have demonstrated a healthy attitude, one that is rational and pragmatic. They must continue doing so.
The current Wang Zhang meeting is indeed an historic step . It means that the peaceful development of cross-strait relations has progressed. It is now undergoing consolidation and institutionalization. In the real world, developments may or may not follow a straight line. Not everything can be plain sailing. Occasionally there will be ups and downs, even shake ups. But as the saying goes, "He who wins the hearts of the people, wins the world." As long as we go with the flow, popular initiatives will usually develop naturally, on their own. They will not be affected by the subjective whims of a tiny minority. As long as the authorities on both sides ride the momentum, and keep pace with the times, they will create the atmosphere and conditions needed. People will be able to look forward to improved cross-strait relations.
This is the eve of the Wang Zhang meeting. The Legislature passed a resolution making all sorts of issues taboo. The DPP clings rigidly to its separatist stance. It persists in undermining cross-strait relations. It persists in exaggerating the differences between the two sides. But the pursuit of peace, economic development, and stability is the national consensus. It is an inexorable trend and an indisputable fact. Artificial and malicious obstruction may delay the process, but it cannot reverse the course of history. This newspaper has long argued that genuine love for Taiwan must be rooted in reason. A "Taiwan consciousness" may safeguard the interests of Taiwan. We absolute support good faith efforts to do so. But we urge the DPP to see the error of its ways. Taiwan independence is a blind alley.
As we all know, cross-strait interactions have been going on for many years. The two sides agreed to put economics first and politics last, to tackle easy problems first and difficult problems last, to deal with practical matters first and talk policy last, to confront political problems last, and to move ahead gradually. This is fully consistent with the spirit of the National Unification Guidelines. The two agencies are quasi-offical bodies. Basically they deal with exchanges resulting from routine business. Their future roles may need to be modified. But in the short term they will remain the same. The two agencies are still necessary. They may be needed on a rainy day.
The current Wang Zhang meeting means that the two sides have already begun official direct contacts. It will further build cross-strait trust under the ageis of institutional exchanges. Obviously this differs somewhat from the work of the two agencies. The emphasis should be placed on future policy issues. The ultimate political issues should be left for Ma and Xi to deal with when they meet. Can Ma Ying-jeou successfully meet with Xi Jinping in November at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference? If he can, this will be the culmination of cross-strait relations. It will be worth the wait and the effort.
This newspaper would like to issue a reminder. Following the Wang Zhang meeting, Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan later this year. Taiwan will be in the grip of election fever. The two sides have much to do. Where there is a will, there is a way. The two sides must take full advantage of creative thinking and strategic ambiguity. The authorities on both sides must consider the big picture. They must consider long term development from a strategic and national perspective. They must continue their efforts to make a Ma Xi meeting a reality in November.
社論－王張會：為馬習會創造條件
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部
2014年02月11日 04:10
陸委會主委王郁琦今天啟程前往中國大陸，進行4天訪問活動，他將與大陸國台辦主任張志軍舉行會談。這是兩岸分治60多年，繼海基、海協兩會以白手套方式進行互動之後，雙方主管兩岸事務官方機構首長的首度正式會談，政治意義不言可喻，已成為各界關心的焦點。
對此，有人稱之為兩岸關係的重大突破，有人將其視為重大的里程碑，本報在對兩岸關係這種健康、正面、積極的發展給予肯定之餘，還有更進一步的期許，期望從今而後，雙方關係能夠進入一個更成熟、更穩定、更理性的階段，形成一種不可逆轉、不受人為操縱、不因政黨輪替而改變的深層穩定結構，這種機制性的互動一旦確定，將不但是台灣之福，兩岸之福，也對區域安全與穩定有極大的助益，應為眾人所樂見。
在王、張二人正式會面之前，相信兩岸雙方必然在幕後進行過密切的溝通與協調。台灣有台灣的顧忌，大陸有大陸的立場，雙方在何處見面、見面的時間、討論的議題、會見的對象、參訪的機構、演講的內容、接待的規格等等都有過沙盤推演，如何不卑不亢的既要表達立場，但又不蓄意挑釁找碴，都要經過仔細的考量。雙方都在摸著石頭過河，精算其中的利弊得失，其中必然曾經有過一段發展及折衝的過程，會面終於實現，代表雙方都展現了善意、誠意與靈活，能夠彼此尊重、相互妥協，值得肯定。
誠如台北官方所言，王、張會面要在對等、尊嚴及互信的基礎上進行。就目前看來，不管是主隨客便或客隨主便，只要在不引發外界不當聯想或內政風波的前提下，雙方主其事者顯然無意給對方增加困難或製造猜忌，給對方設下陰謀陷阱，甚至還願適度的滿足、配合對方的一些合理要求。因為唯有如此，這才符合雙方排除萬難，安排兩人見面的初衷，也對兩岸關係的良性發展有所助益。兩岸當局這種健康的心態與理性務實的作法，務必持之以恆的延續下去。
這次王、張會晤確實是歷史性的一步，意味著兩岸關係的和平發展已經進入深化、鞏固及機制化的階段。雖然在現實的世界裡，事物的發展未必會是直線進行，凡事也不可能一帆風順，間或還會有所起伏，甚至動盪，但所謂得民心者得天下，只要是順天應人、得民心的舉措多半還是會有其自然的發展規律，不會隨著少數人的主觀意志而轉移。今後只要兩岸當局能夠把握勢頭，與時俱進，不但營造氣氛而且還能創造條件，兩岸關係的未來還是可以讓人有所期待。
在王、張會晤前夕，雖然立法院曾經通過決議，要求這個不准談、那個不能碰，民進黨出於僵化的分離主義立場，仍然蓄意要破壞兩岸關係的發展，誇大兩岸之間的歧異，但追求和平、發展、安定已成全民共識，大勢所趨是個不爭的事實，人為的惡意阻擾容或會延緩事務的發展，但已難逆轉歷史的進程。真道理性真愛台灣是本報一貫的主張，對於台灣主體意識、維護台灣利益我們抱持善意的理解與絕對的支持，但仍要規勸民進黨早日回頭是岸，台獨是沒有出路的。
一如所知，兩岸互動多年，雙方一直本著先經後政、先易後難的方式，先處理事務再談政策，最後才面對政治問題，循序漸進的往前發展，這完全符合國統綱領的精神。兩會屬於準官方機構之間的一軌半互動，基本上是處理雙方交流過程中所產生的一些日常性業務，未來職能即或有所調整，但短期內不必然就會淡出，兩會的存在仍然有其必要，甚至可備不時之需。
這次王、張會晤意味著兩岸已經進入官方的一軌接觸，在兩岸能夠進一步建立互信、機制性往來的前提下，顯然有必要和兩會的工作有所區隔，將來重點應該放在處理政策性的議題上，至於最後的政治問題就應該是由大家所期望的馬、習會面加以處理，如果馬英九與習近平能在今年11月的亞太經合會成功見面，這才真是兩岸關係發展的最高潮，值得期待與努力。
最後，本報還是要再次提出呼籲，繼這次的王、張會晤之後，張志軍主任將於今年下半年訪台，即使台灣已經進入政治旺季，但雙方應為、可為之事仍多。人有多大的膽識，事情就有多大的可能，兩岸各界都要善用創造性的思維與策略性的模糊，雙方當局更要由大局出發，從國家、民族長遠發展的戰略高度來看待問題，不斷為11月的馬、習會進一步創造條件，從而促其實現，是所至囑。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 10, 2014
Summary: Following the Wang Zhang meeting, Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan later this year. Taiwan will be in the grip of election fever. The two sides have much to do. Where there is a will, there is a way. The two sides must take full advantage of creative thinking and strategic ambiguity. The authorities on both sides must consider the big picture. They must consider long term development from a strategic and national perspective. They must continue their efforts to make a Ma Xi meeting a reality in November.
Full text below:
MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi departed today. He will arrive on the Mainland for a 4-day visit. He will hold talks with the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun. The two sides of the Strait have been ruled separately for over 60 years. The SEF and ARATS have interacted with each other through "white gloves," or middlemen. This is the first time top officials from the two sides' cross-strait affairs agencies have held formal talks. The political significance cannot be overstated, and has become the focus of public concern.
Some are calling this a major breakthrough in cross-strait relations. Some regard it as a major milestone. Cross-strait relations are developing in a healthy, positive, and forward looking way. But this newspaper has greater expectations. We hope that from this day forth, the two sides can enjoy a more mature, stable, and rational relationship, one that is irreversible and not subject to manipulation, one that is stable and immune to changes in the ruling party. Once such a mechanism for interaction is established, it will be a blessing not only for Taiwan, but for both sides. It will also benefit regional security and stability. It should be welcomed by all.
Before Wang and Zhang formally meet, the two sides will communicate and coordinate behind the scenes. Taiwan has its concerns. The Mainland has its requirements. Where the two sides will meet, when they will meet, what issues they will discuss, what the object of the meeting will be, which agencies will participate, what speeches will be delivered, and what protocol will be followed, will all be planned in advance. How can we express our position in a manner that is neither obsequious nor provocative? That is a question that will require careful consideration. Both sides are "feeling the stones while crossing the river." They are carefully performing cost benefit analysis. They will have to undergo a period of trial and error. If the meeting finally materializes, it will mean representatives from both sides demonstrated goodwill, sincerity, and flexibility. It will mean they were able to respect each other and compromise with each other. It will surely merit recognition.
As Taipei officials said, the Wang Zhang meeting requires equality, dignity and mutual trust. The host may follow the guest's lead. Or the guest may follow the host's lead. For now, all that is required is that observers not draw the wrong conclusions, or internal politics upset the apple cart. Apparently neither side wants to make life difficult for the other, provoke suspicions in the other, or set a trap for the other. Neither side wants to appear smug. Both want to accomodate the other side's reasonable requests. This is the only way the two sides can overcome the odds and fulfill their original intention of having the two men meet. This is helpful to the healthy development of cross-strait relations. The authorities on both sides have demonstrated a healthy attitude, one that is rational and pragmatic. They must continue doing so.
The current Wang Zhang meeting is indeed an historic step . It means that the peaceful development of cross-strait relations has progressed. It is now undergoing consolidation and institutionalization. In the real world, developments may or may not follow a straight line. Not everything can be plain sailing. Occasionally there will be ups and downs, even shake ups. But as the saying goes, "He who wins the hearts of the people, wins the world." As long as we go with the flow, popular initiatives will usually develop naturally, on their own. They will not be affected by the subjective whims of a tiny minority. As long as the authorities on both sides ride the momentum, and keep pace with the times, they will create the atmosphere and conditions needed. People will be able to look forward to improved cross-strait relations.
This is the eve of the Wang Zhang meeting. The Legislature passed a resolution making all sorts of issues taboo. The DPP clings rigidly to its separatist stance. It persists in undermining cross-strait relations. It persists in exaggerating the differences between the two sides. But the pursuit of peace, economic development, and stability is the national consensus. It is an inexorable trend and an indisputable fact. Artificial and malicious obstruction may delay the process, but it cannot reverse the course of history. This newspaper has long argued that genuine love for Taiwan must be rooted in reason. A "Taiwan consciousness" may safeguard the interests of Taiwan. We absolute support good faith efforts to do so. But we urge the DPP to see the error of its ways. Taiwan independence is a blind alley.
As we all know, cross-strait interactions have been going on for many years. The two sides agreed to put economics first and politics last, to tackle easy problems first and difficult problems last, to deal with practical matters first and talk policy last, to confront political problems last, and to move ahead gradually. This is fully consistent with the spirit of the National Unification Guidelines. The two agencies are quasi-offical bodies. Basically they deal with exchanges resulting from routine business. Their future roles may need to be modified. But in the short term they will remain the same. The two agencies are still necessary. They may be needed on a rainy day.
The current Wang Zhang meeting means that the two sides have already begun official direct contacts. It will further build cross-strait trust under the ageis of institutional exchanges. Obviously this differs somewhat from the work of the two agencies. The emphasis should be placed on future policy issues. The ultimate political issues should be left for Ma and Xi to deal with when they meet. Can Ma Ying-jeou successfully meet with Xi Jinping in November at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference? If he can, this will be the culmination of cross-strait relations. It will be worth the wait and the effort.
This newspaper would like to issue a reminder. Following the Wang Zhang meeting, Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan later this year. Taiwan will be in the grip of election fever. The two sides have much to do. Where there is a will, there is a way. The two sides must take full advantage of creative thinking and strategic ambiguity. The authorities on both sides must consider the big picture. They must consider long term development from a strategic and national perspective. They must continue their efforts to make a Ma Xi meeting a reality in November.
社論－王張會：為馬習會創造條件
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部
2014年02月11日 04:10
陸委會主委王郁琦今天啟程前往中國大陸，進行4天訪問活動，他將與大陸國台辦主任張志軍舉行會談。這是兩岸分治60多年，繼海基、海協兩會以白手套方式進行互動之後，雙方主管兩岸事務官方機構首長的首度正式會談，政治意義不言可喻，已成為各界關心的焦點。
對此，有人稱之為兩岸關係的重大突破，有人將其視為重大的里程碑，本報在對兩岸關係這種健康、正面、積極的發展給予肯定之餘，還有更進一步的期許，期望從今而後，雙方關係能夠進入一個更成熟、更穩定、更理性的階段，形成一種不可逆轉、不受人為操縱、不因政黨輪替而改變的深層穩定結構，這種機制性的互動一旦確定，將不但是台灣之福，兩岸之福，也對區域安全與穩定有極大的助益，應為眾人所樂見。
在王、張二人正式會面之前，相信兩岸雙方必然在幕後進行過密切的溝通與協調。台灣有台灣的顧忌，大陸有大陸的立場，雙方在何處見面、見面的時間、討論的議題、會見的對象、參訪的機構、演講的內容、接待的規格等等都有過沙盤推演，如何不卑不亢的既要表達立場，但又不蓄意挑釁找碴，都要經過仔細的考量。雙方都在摸著石頭過河，精算其中的利弊得失，其中必然曾經有過一段發展及折衝的過程，會面終於實現，代表雙方都展現了善意、誠意與靈活，能夠彼此尊重、相互妥協，值得肯定。
誠如台北官方所言，王、張會面要在對等、尊嚴及互信的基礎上進行。就目前看來，不管是主隨客便或客隨主便，只要在不引發外界不當聯想或內政風波的前提下，雙方主其事者顯然無意給對方增加困難或製造猜忌，給對方設下陰謀陷阱，甚至還願適度的滿足、配合對方的一些合理要求。因為唯有如此，這才符合雙方排除萬難，安排兩人見面的初衷，也對兩岸關係的良性發展有所助益。兩岸當局這種健康的心態與理性務實的作法，務必持之以恆的延續下去。
這次王、張會晤確實是歷史性的一步，意味著兩岸關係的和平發展已經進入深化、鞏固及機制化的階段。雖然在現實的世界裡，事物的發展未必會是直線進行，凡事也不可能一帆風順，間或還會有所起伏，甚至動盪，但所謂得民心者得天下，只要是順天應人、得民心的舉措多半還是會有其自然的發展規律，不會隨著少數人的主觀意志而轉移。今後只要兩岸當局能夠把握勢頭，與時俱進，不但營造氣氛而且還能創造條件，兩岸關係的未來還是可以讓人有所期待。
在王、張會晤前夕，雖然立法院曾經通過決議，要求這個不准談、那個不能碰，民進黨出於僵化的分離主義立場，仍然蓄意要破壞兩岸關係的發展，誇大兩岸之間的歧異，但追求和平、發展、安定已成全民共識，大勢所趨是個不爭的事實，人為的惡意阻擾容或會延緩事務的發展，但已難逆轉歷史的進程。真道理性真愛台灣是本報一貫的主張，對於台灣主體意識、維護台灣利益我們抱持善意的理解與絕對的支持，但仍要規勸民進黨早日回頭是岸，台獨是沒有出路的。
一如所知，兩岸互動多年，雙方一直本著先經後政、先易後難的方式，先處理事務再談政策，最後才面對政治問題，循序漸進的往前發展，這完全符合國統綱領的精神。兩會屬於準官方機構之間的一軌半互動，基本上是處理雙方交流過程中所產生的一些日常性業務，未來職能即或有所調整，但短期內不必然就會淡出，兩會的存在仍然有其必要，甚至可備不時之需。
這次王、張會晤意味著兩岸已經進入官方的一軌接觸，在兩岸能夠進一步建立互信、機制性往來的前提下，顯然有必要和兩會的工作有所區隔，將來重點應該放在處理政策性的議題上，至於最後的政治問題就應該是由大家所期望的馬、習會面加以處理，如果馬英九與習近平能在今年11月的亞太經合會成功見面，這才真是兩岸關係發展的最高潮，值得期待與努力。
最後，本報還是要再次提出呼籲，繼這次的王、張會晤之後，張志軍主任將於今年下半年訪台，即使台灣已經進入政治旺季，但雙方應為、可為之事仍多。人有多大的膽識，事情就有多大的可能，兩岸各界都要善用創造性的思維與策略性的模糊，雙方當局更要由大局出發，從國家、民族長遠發展的戰略高度來看待問題，不斷為11月的馬、習會進一步創造條件，從而促其實現，是所至囑。
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Wang Zhang Meeting: A New Understanding on National Identity
Wang Zhang Meeting: A New Understanding on National Identity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 10, 2014
Summary: We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?
Full text below:
ROC Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi will travel to the Mainland tomorrow. The most important aspect of his trip, is that Wang Yu-chi will be visiting using his official title. He will also be addressing officials on the other side by their official titles. This is the first time the two sides have greeted each other as one head of government to another head of government.
Of course, the significance of this must not be blown out of proportion. For the time being, this is merely a special case. It does not mean all officials from the two sides will be addressing each other by their official titles. But both Wang and Zhang are heads of government. Suppose this is applied to higher level officials? The MAC is part of the Executive Yuan. The Taiwan Affairs Office is part of the State Council. Suppose this is applied to even higher level officials? The Executive Yuan is part of the ROC. The State Council is part of the PRC. Admittedly this is unlikely to happen any time soon. But Wang and Zhang have removed their "white gloves." They have referred to each other by their official titles. . They have taken the first step in establishing a new consensus on the two sides' political and national identities.
Beijing is being cautious about this first step. Before Chairman Wang departed, word emerged that Beijing had issued "Three Taboos." One. Political issues must not be discussed. Two. The term "Republic of China" must not be mentioned. Three. Terms such as human rights, democracy , the rule of law, and president must not be mentioned. In other words, this meeting has constraints. The terms "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" are acceptable. But "president" and "Republic of China" remain taboo. This is odd. After all, Beijing recognizes "Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi." Yet without the ROC, without the presidential office, without the Executive Yuan, there would be no Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi.
This meeting permits the use of "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang." This is a meaningful step forward. But proceeding directly to the use of "Republic of China " or "president" remains forbidden. This is regrettable. We do not recommend taking a mile when we have been given an inch. To do so would be premature. But we hope the two sides will cherish the "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" inch that they have already been given. After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. A mighty torrent begins with a tiny trickle.
The purpose of the Wang Zhang meeting is to establish cross-strait representative offices and deal with other matters. But these matters could have been managed without the Wang Zhang meeting. Therefore the real significance of the visit and meeting is that "Chairman Wang" is received by "Director Zhang." This amounts to a "head of government meets a head of government" protocol. Of course Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles has many implications. Many issues still cannot be voiced too loudly or expressed too clearly. For the time being, one cannot expect this protocol to be applied to other heads of the two governments, such as the president and national secretary. But this amounts to a difficult and significant first step. We hope the two sides can work together. We hope they can establish a new understanding regarding their political and national identity.
The current cross-strait political understanding is summed up in the "one China framework." Beijing's "one China framework" implies that "one China" is the People's Republic of China. The Ma adminstration's counterargument is that "one China" is the Republic of China. This framework is referred to as "one China, different interpretations." Unfortunately, this framework does not permit the two sides to address each other by their official titles. Also, it amounts to a different kind of "two states theory." To resolve this "two states" dilemma, the only solution is for the two sides to accept a "big roof concept of China." Under this "Greater One China Framework" meta-concept, the two sides' sovereignty overlap and is shared. Such a framework encompasses both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. It would eliminate any lingering concerns that it constituted a "two states theory." Officials from both sides would have a legal basis by which to address each other by their official titles.
The only legal basis for a Wang Zhang meeting, one in which officials from the two sides address each other by their official titles, is the "big roof concept of one China." Both the ROC and the PRC are subsumed under the "big roof concept of China." Therefore Chairman Wang and Director Zhang addressing each other using their official titles would not be the resulf of any "two states theory," but rather the "big roof concept of one China."
As we can see, the "big roof concept of China" is real. Chairman Wang Yu-chi and Director Zhang Zhijun are real. Political considerations may force us to deny this reality, for now. But one day Chairman Wang and Director Zhang will address each other by their official titles. Political considerations may force us to deny the facts. But they cannot eradicate the facts. Will the two sides be reduced to a coercive and oppressive "kill or be killed" scenario? If not, the only solution is the "big roof concept of China." Accordingly to this concept, Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles can be regarded as a tentative step in the direction of the "big roof concept of China." We must proceed with caution. But we must never retreat.
We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?
創新兩岸國家論述自王張會始
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.10 03:23 am
中華民國行政院大陸委員會主任委員王郁琦明日率團訪問中國大陸。此行最重大的意義，在於王郁琦公開宣示將以政府正式職銜往訪，而對方亦給予互稱官銜的承諾，這是兩岸首次進行「政府首長對政府首長」的拜會訪問。
當然，不能過度放大此會的效應。畢竟，在眼前看來，這只是特例，尚不能發展為兩岸官員一律互稱官銜的通案。但是，王張各為主管兩岸政務的政府首長；往上推，陸委會屬行政院，國台辦屬國務院；再往上推，行政院屬中華民國，國務院屬中華人民共和國。誠然，現在並無往上推的可能性，但王張既能脫掉了白手套，互稱官銜，可謂已經跨出了「創新兩岸政府論述／國家論述」的第一步。
跨出這第一步，北京顯得戒慎恐懼。於是，王主委行前，傳出北京方面有「三個不能說」的禁忌。一、不能談政治議題；二、不能提中華民國；三、不能提人權、民主、法治和總統。也就是說，此會的上限天花板是「互稱王主委與張主任」，而天花板以上的「總統」及「中華民國」，仍屬此會的禁區。但是，既然承認了「陸委會主任委員王郁琦」，若是沒有中華民國，沒有總統府，沒有行政院，哪來的陸委會主委王郁琦？
可見，此會「互稱王主委與張主任」，已是跨出具有重大意義的一步；但若欲由此推進至直稱「中華民國」或「總統」，卻尚無可能。然而，雖是如此，我們並不建議在時機尚未成熟之時作「得寸進尺」的奢求，但我們亦至盼雙方皆能珍惜「互稱王主委與張主任」的「一寸之得」，畢竟，不積跬步無以致千里，不積小流無以成江海。
此次王張會的議程上，有兩岸互設辦事處等項目；但這些議題，即使沒有王張會，也能進行無礙。因而，此會最重大的亮點即在，「王郁琦主委」親訪大陸，而能受到「張志軍主任」的接待，由此呈現了「政府首長對政府首長」的形式。當然，在「王張互稱官銜」的形式表現下，仍有極多不能說或說不清的理則有待釐清，且一時並不能向旁側推及雙方政府其他首長，亦不能向上推及總統或國家主席；但我們希望，在好不容易跨出這意義重大的第一步之後，雙方能共同努力由此啟動「創新兩岸政府論述及國家論述」的槓桿。
兩岸現在的政治默契是「一中框架」或「一中架構」。北京「一中框架」的潛台詞是「一個中國是中華人民共和國」，因此馬政府的對策即是「一個中國就是中華民國」；這樣的架構可稱作「一中各表」，但也因此不能「互稱官銜」，因為那可能形成另一種「兩國論」。若要解決「兩個中國」的難題與疑慮，唯一的方案，就是兩岸共同接受一個「大屋頂中國」，也就是一個「主權相互含蘊並共同合成」的「上位概念」的「大一中架構」，並接受「中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國」，如此即無「兩國論」的疑慮，兩岸官員就有了「互稱官銜」的法理基礎。
其實，若欲為王張會「互稱官銜」的進展找到法理基礎，唯一的解釋即在「大屋頂中國」；因為，中華民國與中華人民共和國，均在「大屋頂中國」之下及之內，所以王主委和張主任互稱官銜也就不是出自兩國論，而亦是在「大一中架構」之下及之內。
因此可知，「大屋頂中國」是一個真實的存在；正如王郁琦主委與張志軍主任皆是真實的存在。政治力或許可能在一定條件下否認事實於一時，但終究也有「王主委與張主任互稱官銜」的一天；因為，政治力可以否認事實，但未必能消滅事實。如果兩岸的未來不是以「你吃掉我，我吃掉你」的強制及壓迫手段來解決，「大屋頂中國」即應是唯一的方案。據此以論，「王張互稱官銜」即不妨視為對「大屋頂中國」的初步試探；慎步前行，萬勿退卻。
希望兩岸能珍惜王張會上互稱官銜的重大成就，並以「共創兩岸政府新論述及國家新論述」的高度視之。如此，王張會能，馬習會亦焉有不能？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 10, 2014
Summary: We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?
Full text below:
ROC Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi will travel to the Mainland tomorrow. The most important aspect of his trip, is that Wang Yu-chi will be visiting using his official title. He will also be addressing officials on the other side by their official titles. This is the first time the two sides have greeted each other as one head of government to another head of government.
Of course, the significance of this must not be blown out of proportion. For the time being, this is merely a special case. It does not mean all officials from the two sides will be addressing each other by their official titles. But both Wang and Zhang are heads of government. Suppose this is applied to higher level officials? The MAC is part of the Executive Yuan. The Taiwan Affairs Office is part of the State Council. Suppose this is applied to even higher level officials? The Executive Yuan is part of the ROC. The State Council is part of the PRC. Admittedly this is unlikely to happen any time soon. But Wang and Zhang have removed their "white gloves." They have referred to each other by their official titles. . They have taken the first step in establishing a new consensus on the two sides' political and national identities.
Beijing is being cautious about this first step. Before Chairman Wang departed, word emerged that Beijing had issued "Three Taboos." One. Political issues must not be discussed. Two. The term "Republic of China" must not be mentioned. Three. Terms such as human rights, democracy , the rule of law, and president must not be mentioned. In other words, this meeting has constraints. The terms "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" are acceptable. But "president" and "Republic of China" remain taboo. This is odd. After all, Beijing recognizes "Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi." Yet without the ROC, without the presidential office, without the Executive Yuan, there would be no Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi.
This meeting permits the use of "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang." This is a meaningful step forward. But proceeding directly to the use of "Republic of China " or "president" remains forbidden. This is regrettable. We do not recommend taking a mile when we have been given an inch. To do so would be premature. But we hope the two sides will cherish the "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" inch that they have already been given. After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. A mighty torrent begins with a tiny trickle.
The purpose of the Wang Zhang meeting is to establish cross-strait representative offices and deal with other matters. But these matters could have been managed without the Wang Zhang meeting. Therefore the real significance of the visit and meeting is that "Chairman Wang" is received by "Director Zhang." This amounts to a "head of government meets a head of government" protocol. Of course Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles has many implications. Many issues still cannot be voiced too loudly or expressed too clearly. For the time being, one cannot expect this protocol to be applied to other heads of the two governments, such as the president and national secretary. But this amounts to a difficult and significant first step. We hope the two sides can work together. We hope they can establish a new understanding regarding their political and national identity.
The current cross-strait political understanding is summed up in the "one China framework." Beijing's "one China framework" implies that "one China" is the People's Republic of China. The Ma adminstration's counterargument is that "one China" is the Republic of China. This framework is referred to as "one China, different interpretations." Unfortunately, this framework does not permit the two sides to address each other by their official titles. Also, it amounts to a different kind of "two states theory." To resolve this "two states" dilemma, the only solution is for the two sides to accept a "big roof concept of China." Under this "Greater One China Framework" meta-concept, the two sides' sovereignty overlap and is shared. Such a framework encompasses both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. It would eliminate any lingering concerns that it constituted a "two states theory." Officials from both sides would have a legal basis by which to address each other by their official titles.
The only legal basis for a Wang Zhang meeting, one in which officials from the two sides address each other by their official titles, is the "big roof concept of one China." Both the ROC and the PRC are subsumed under the "big roof concept of China." Therefore Chairman Wang and Director Zhang addressing each other using their official titles would not be the resulf of any "two states theory," but rather the "big roof concept of one China."
As we can see, the "big roof concept of China" is real. Chairman Wang Yu-chi and Director Zhang Zhijun are real. Political considerations may force us to deny this reality, for now. But one day Chairman Wang and Director Zhang will address each other by their official titles. Political considerations may force us to deny the facts. But they cannot eradicate the facts. Will the two sides be reduced to a coercive and oppressive "kill or be killed" scenario? If not, the only solution is the "big roof concept of China." Accordingly to this concept, Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles can be regarded as a tentative step in the direction of the "big roof concept of China." We must proceed with caution. But we must never retreat.
We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?
創新兩岸國家論述自王張會始
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.10 03:23 am
中華民國行政院大陸委員會主任委員王郁琦明日率團訪問中國大陸。此行最重大的意義，在於王郁琦公開宣示將以政府正式職銜往訪，而對方亦給予互稱官銜的承諾，這是兩岸首次進行「政府首長對政府首長」的拜會訪問。
當然，不能過度放大此會的效應。畢竟，在眼前看來，這只是特例，尚不能發展為兩岸官員一律互稱官銜的通案。但是，王張各為主管兩岸政務的政府首長；往上推，陸委會屬行政院，國台辦屬國務院；再往上推，行政院屬中華民國，國務院屬中華人民共和國。誠然，現在並無往上推的可能性，但王張既能脫掉了白手套，互稱官銜，可謂已經跨出了「創新兩岸政府論述／國家論述」的第一步。
跨出這第一步，北京顯得戒慎恐懼。於是，王主委行前，傳出北京方面有「三個不能說」的禁忌。一、不能談政治議題；二、不能提中華民國；三、不能提人權、民主、法治和總統。也就是說，此會的上限天花板是「互稱王主委與張主任」，而天花板以上的「總統」及「中華民國」，仍屬此會的禁區。但是，既然承認了「陸委會主任委員王郁琦」，若是沒有中華民國，沒有總統府，沒有行政院，哪來的陸委會主委王郁琦？
可見，此會「互稱王主委與張主任」，已是跨出具有重大意義的一步；但若欲由此推進至直稱「中華民國」或「總統」，卻尚無可能。然而，雖是如此，我們並不建議在時機尚未成熟之時作「得寸進尺」的奢求，但我們亦至盼雙方皆能珍惜「互稱王主委與張主任」的「一寸之得」，畢竟，不積跬步無以致千里，不積小流無以成江海。
此次王張會的議程上，有兩岸互設辦事處等項目；但這些議題，即使沒有王張會，也能進行無礙。因而，此會最重大的亮點即在，「王郁琦主委」親訪大陸，而能受到「張志軍主任」的接待，由此呈現了「政府首長對政府首長」的形式。當然，在「王張互稱官銜」的形式表現下，仍有極多不能說或說不清的理則有待釐清，且一時並不能向旁側推及雙方政府其他首長，亦不能向上推及總統或國家主席；但我們希望，在好不容易跨出這意義重大的第一步之後，雙方能共同努力由此啟動「創新兩岸政府論述及國家論述」的槓桿。
兩岸現在的政治默契是「一中框架」或「一中架構」。北京「一中框架」的潛台詞是「一個中國是中華人民共和國」，因此馬政府的對策即是「一個中國就是中華民國」；這樣的架構可稱作「一中各表」，但也因此不能「互稱官銜」，因為那可能形成另一種「兩國論」。若要解決「兩個中國」的難題與疑慮，唯一的方案，就是兩岸共同接受一個「大屋頂中國」，也就是一個「主權相互含蘊並共同合成」的「上位概念」的「大一中架構」，並接受「中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國」，如此即無「兩國論」的疑慮，兩岸官員就有了「互稱官銜」的法理基礎。
其實，若欲為王張會「互稱官銜」的進展找到法理基礎，唯一的解釋即在「大屋頂中國」；因為，中華民國與中華人民共和國，均在「大屋頂中國」之下及之內，所以王主委和張主任互稱官銜也就不是出自兩國論，而亦是在「大一中架構」之下及之內。
因此可知，「大屋頂中國」是一個真實的存在；正如王郁琦主委與張志軍主任皆是真實的存在。政治力或許可能在一定條件下否認事實於一時，但終究也有「王主委與張主任互稱官銜」的一天；因為，政治力可以否認事實，但未必能消滅事實。如果兩岸的未來不是以「你吃掉我，我吃掉你」的強制及壓迫手段來解決，「大屋頂中國」即應是唯一的方案。據此以論，「王張互稱官銜」即不妨視為對「大屋頂中國」的初步試探；慎步前行，萬勿退卻。
希望兩岸能珍惜王張會上互稱官銜的重大成就，並以「共創兩岸政府新論述及國家新論述」的高度視之。如此，王張會能，馬習會亦焉有不能？
Thursday, February 6, 2014
DPP: Taiwan Nativization and Japanese Colonialism
DPP: Taiwan Nativization and Japanese Colonialism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 7, 2014
Summary:The DPP cannot find its way out of its self-made Sinophobic maze. It can only invoke Orwellian euphemisms in history texts to blind itself to the ugly realities. It has embarked on this path of self-deception. It is forcing itself to continue down this Japanophile path of no return. In the end, any mention of Taiwan's victimization at the hands of Japanese colonialism must be obliterated. DPP officials forbd themselves to even utter the words "Japanese occupation." They forbid themselves any mention of a "colonial subject mentality." This reveals the pathetic extent of DPP ignorance. Look at East Asia. Look at the many countries that suffered bitterly under Japanese oppression. Now look at the DPP's uncritical Japanophilia. Is this not a bizarre take on world history?
Full text below:
The senior high school history curriculum recently underwent some minor modifications. The main purpose of the modifications was to correct old texts which prettified Japanese colonialism. Who knew the move would touch off a violent reaction from the DPP? The DPP Central Standing Committee passed a resolution demanding that six counties and municipalities headed by Green Camp officials reject the new curriculum and continue using the old textbooks.
This happens to be an election year. The DPP is seizing upon any issue it can to indulge in obstructionism and to incite political conflict. It is not hard to understand their motivation. But is the DPP doing the right thing by opposing the history curriculum? It is not.
Let us scrutinize the modifications to the senior high school history curriculum. It changed "China" to "Mainland China." This touched a sensitive nerve in the DPP, with its deep rooted Sinophobia. Other significant amendments focused on Japanese aggression against the rest of Asia, including colonial rule in Taiwan. It changed "era of Japanese rule" to the more historically factual "Japanese colonial era." It described Japan's exploitation of the "comfort women" as "coerced." It described Japan's ambition to establish a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" as "aggression." These words appear in the history texts of every nation in East Asia. It is an objective description of historical fact. So why is the DPP alone determined to prevent the next generation from learning the truth from history texts on Taiwan?
Was Japan's 50 year rule over Taiwan really not colonialism? Were there really no armed crackdowns across the country? Were Taiwan's precious resources really not "plundered?" Japan abducted women from Taiwan and Korea. It turned them into "comfort women." Were the women really not "coerced?" Are we to really supposed to believe that these women volunteered to be sex slaves? Japan initiated the war. It trampled over Mainland China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines, Burma, French Indochina, and even the Dutch East Indies. Were such actions really not "aggression?" Was this really a "peaceful unification" of Greater East Asia? Did these countries willingly surrender their own land?
The DPP has long waved the banner of "nativization," in order to challenge the KMT, which is denounces as a "foreign regime." This strategy has handed the DPP many successes. As a result it sees intensified "native consciousness" on Taiwan as a positive development. But using "native consciousness" to demonize the KMT and Mainland China, and to pursue Taiwan independence, is an entirely different matter. Wantonly distorting history in order to promote Sinophobia and intentionally prettifying Japanese colonial rule on Taiwan in order to vilify KMT rule, is an entirely different matter. The problem with the DPP is that it confuses subjective whim with objective fact. It distorts objective reality in order to realize its subjective desires. This is classic "ostrich with its head in the sand" behavior.
The DPP's equation of "nativization" with Sinophobia is now second nature. This is bad enough. But now it is conflating Sinophobia with apologism for Japanese colonialism. What sort of voodoo logic is this? Does the DPP even remember its raison d'etre as a "nativist" political party? In order to incite Sinophobia, it is now prettifying Japanese colonialism. It is willfully blindfolding itself, Worse, it is willfully blindfolding the next generation. It is afraid to even utter the word "colonialism." It is afraid to even utter the word "aggression." It is afraid to even utter the word "retrocession." It is afraid to even admit that the "comfort women" were coerced. What happened to the DPP's assertions of Taiwan's "primacy?" What sort of historical foundation is Taiwan's post-colonial experience supposed to be built on? Little wonder the DPP has behaved as it has during the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute in the East China Sea. It has shrilly condemned both the KMT and the CCP, but it has not uttered a single word of condemnation for Shinzo Abe's territorial expansionist ambitions.
The changes to the senior high school history curriculum eliminate flagrant DPP era prettification of Japanese colonialism. Mostly it fine-tunes the text. It even gives "Japanese rule," which is an absurd euphemism for Japanese occupation, a free pass. Predictably however, the DPP has threatened to wage open warfare on "three major battlefields." These include the Legislative Yuan, the streets, and six counties and muncipalities presided over by Pan Green officials. Su Tseng-chang even boasted that Taiwan has finally emerged from the authoritarian era of "education in the service of politics," and that Taiwan must never be allowed to go back. Ironically, his declaration amounted to a slap in the DPP's face. A dozen or so DPP Central Standing Committee members hand down an arbitrary order from on high. They order these counties and municipalities to adopt this or that textbook. How is this not "education in the service of politics?" How can a self-absorbed and lost DPP compel students to unconditionally obey their edicts?
The crux of the problem is the DPP cannot find its way out of its self-made Sinophobic maze. It can only invoke Orwellian euphemisms in history texts to blind itself to the ugly realities. It has embarked on this path of self-deception. It is forcing itself to continue down this Japanophile path of no return. In the end, any mention of Taiwan's victimization at the hands of Japanese colonialism must be obliterated. DPP officials forbd themselves to even utter the words "Japanese occupation." They forbid themselves any mention of a "colonial subject mentality." This reveals the pathetic extent of DPP ignorance. Look at East Asia. Look at the many countries that suffered bitterly under Japanese oppression. Now look at the DPP's uncritical Japanophilia. Is this not a bizarre take on world history?
民進黨從「本土化」躍向「擁殖民」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.07 02:13 am
高中歷史新課綱最近進行微調，主要目的，在修正原教科書中對日本殖民的過度美化。不料，此舉竟引起民進黨的強烈反彈，中常會更決議，要求綠營執政的六縣市集體抵制新課綱，沿用舊教本。
正逢選舉年，民進黨抓到任何可以發揮的題材即發動杯葛，製造政治對立，其動機可以理解。然而，民進黨這回宣示反對歷史課綱，能稱得上理直氣壯嗎？恐怕不然！
觀察這次高中歷史課綱的修改，除了將「中國」改稱「中國大陸」，因而碰觸到民進黨「反中情結」的敏感神經外；其他重大的修正，都集中於日本當年在亞洲的侵略與對台的殖民統治，包括：將「日本統治時期」改為更貼近史實的「日本殖民統治時期」，對日本徵用慰安婦增加了「強迫」二字，對日本建立「大東亞共榮圈」的野心加入「侵略」二字。這些用詞，放在東亞被侵略任何國家的教科書上，都是絕對客觀的描述；那麼，在台灣的教科書上，為何獨獨民進黨要禁止我們的下一代認識歷史真相？
試問：日本在台灣的五十年統治，難道不是「殖民」？難道沒有在各地進行武力鎮壓，並「掠奪」台灣的寶貴資源？日本徵用台、韓慰安婦，如果不是強迫，難道是這些婦女志願前往服務的嗎？日本發動戰爭，鐵蹄踏遍中、韓、台、港、星、馬、菲、緬、法屬印度支那，直抵荷屬東印度；這樣的行動若不是「侵略」，難道是「和平統一」大東亞，或各國甘願獻上自己的土地向它臣服？
民進黨當年揮舞「本土化」的大旗，來挑戰國民黨的「外來政權」，確有其戰略上的成功之處；因此強化了台灣的「本土意識」，亦自有其正面意義。但是，要把「本土意識」當成「反國民黨」、「反中」籌碼，進而達成追求「台獨」的目標，這是一回事；但為了要「反中」而肆意扭曲歷史，甚至要刻意「美化」日本在台灣的殖民，藉以醜化國民黨的治理，這又是另一回事。民進黨的問題，是把自己的主觀意願和外在的客觀事實混為一談，以為扭曲外在現實即可實現主觀意願，這是典型的鴕鳥作風。
再說，民進黨將「本土化」和「反中」畫上等號已成慣技，也就罷了；但因「反中」要進而與「擁日」畫上等號，這又是什麼巫毒邏輯？如此一來，民進黨還找得到自己本土政黨的原初立足點嗎？為了「反中」而「擁日」，是矇住自己的眼睛，更矇住下一代的眼睛；連一句「殖民」都不敢說，連一句「侵略」都不敢說，連「光復」一詞都不許用，連慰安婦「被迫」都不能說；那麼，民進黨宣稱的台灣「主體性」在哪裡？台灣的後殖民反省又要植基於什麼史觀？這也難怪，在東海釣魚台主權之爭時，民進黨除了高聲責難國民黨和中共，對於野心勃勃的安倍卻說不出一句譴責的話。
這次高中歷史課綱的修正，是在去除民進黨執政時代課綱對日本的過度美化，主要是文字上進行微調，連「日據」、「日治」之爭都已放過不提。孰料，民進黨卻揚言要在立法院、街頭和綠執政六縣市開啟「三大戰場」；蘇貞昌更稱，台灣好不容易走出「教育為政治服務」的威權年代，絕不容許台灣再走回頭路。這番說法，恰恰是民進黨自打嘴巴；試想，民進黨區區十幾人的中常會，就可以任意下令，指示某些縣市採用這樣或那樣的教科書，這不正是在強迫「教育為政治服務」嗎？然而，民進黨自己的耽溺和迷失，能夠強迫學生照單全收嗎？
問題的癥結是：民進黨在現實上走不出「反中」的迷宮，只能在歷史教科書上利用文字來自我麻醉；一旦走上這條自欺欺人之路，又逼得自己必須一路倒向「親日」的不歸路，最後，竟連台灣遭到日本「殖民」的歷史都要一起抹殺。這種不許說「日據」、不許談「殖民」的心態，才是民進黨最大的蒙昧與悲哀。放眼整個東亞，所有遭受過日本鐵蹄踐踏的國家，民進黨的媚日史觀真可謂絕無僅有了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 7, 2014
Summary:The DPP cannot find its way out of its self-made Sinophobic maze. It can only invoke Orwellian euphemisms in history texts to blind itself to the ugly realities. It has embarked on this path of self-deception. It is forcing itself to continue down this Japanophile path of no return. In the end, any mention of Taiwan's victimization at the hands of Japanese colonialism must be obliterated. DPP officials forbd themselves to even utter the words "Japanese occupation." They forbid themselves any mention of a "colonial subject mentality." This reveals the pathetic extent of DPP ignorance. Look at East Asia. Look at the many countries that suffered bitterly under Japanese oppression. Now look at the DPP's uncritical Japanophilia. Is this not a bizarre take on world history?
Full text below:
The senior high school history curriculum recently underwent some minor modifications. The main purpose of the modifications was to correct old texts which prettified Japanese colonialism. Who knew the move would touch off a violent reaction from the DPP? The DPP Central Standing Committee passed a resolution demanding that six counties and municipalities headed by Green Camp officials reject the new curriculum and continue using the old textbooks.
This happens to be an election year. The DPP is seizing upon any issue it can to indulge in obstructionism and to incite political conflict. It is not hard to understand their motivation. But is the DPP doing the right thing by opposing the history curriculum? It is not.
Let us scrutinize the modifications to the senior high school history curriculum. It changed "China" to "Mainland China." This touched a sensitive nerve in the DPP, with its deep rooted Sinophobia. Other significant amendments focused on Japanese aggression against the rest of Asia, including colonial rule in Taiwan. It changed "era of Japanese rule" to the more historically factual "Japanese colonial era." It described Japan's exploitation of the "comfort women" as "coerced." It described Japan's ambition to establish a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" as "aggression." These words appear in the history texts of every nation in East Asia. It is an objective description of historical fact. So why is the DPP alone determined to prevent the next generation from learning the truth from history texts on Taiwan?
Was Japan's 50 year rule over Taiwan really not colonialism? Were there really no armed crackdowns across the country? Were Taiwan's precious resources really not "plundered?" Japan abducted women from Taiwan and Korea. It turned them into "comfort women." Were the women really not "coerced?" Are we to really supposed to believe that these women volunteered to be sex slaves? Japan initiated the war. It trampled over Mainland China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines, Burma, French Indochina, and even the Dutch East Indies. Were such actions really not "aggression?" Was this really a "peaceful unification" of Greater East Asia? Did these countries willingly surrender their own land?
The DPP has long waved the banner of "nativization," in order to challenge the KMT, which is denounces as a "foreign regime." This strategy has handed the DPP many successes. As a result it sees intensified "native consciousness" on Taiwan as a positive development. But using "native consciousness" to demonize the KMT and Mainland China, and to pursue Taiwan independence, is an entirely different matter. Wantonly distorting history in order to promote Sinophobia and intentionally prettifying Japanese colonial rule on Taiwan in order to vilify KMT rule, is an entirely different matter. The problem with the DPP is that it confuses subjective whim with objective fact. It distorts objective reality in order to realize its subjective desires. This is classic "ostrich with its head in the sand" behavior.
The DPP's equation of "nativization" with Sinophobia is now second nature. This is bad enough. But now it is conflating Sinophobia with apologism for Japanese colonialism. What sort of voodoo logic is this? Does the DPP even remember its raison d'etre as a "nativist" political party? In order to incite Sinophobia, it is now prettifying Japanese colonialism. It is willfully blindfolding itself, Worse, it is willfully blindfolding the next generation. It is afraid to even utter the word "colonialism." It is afraid to even utter the word "aggression." It is afraid to even utter the word "retrocession." It is afraid to even admit that the "comfort women" were coerced. What happened to the DPP's assertions of Taiwan's "primacy?" What sort of historical foundation is Taiwan's post-colonial experience supposed to be built on? Little wonder the DPP has behaved as it has during the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute in the East China Sea. It has shrilly condemned both the KMT and the CCP, but it has not uttered a single word of condemnation for Shinzo Abe's territorial expansionist ambitions.
The changes to the senior high school history curriculum eliminate flagrant DPP era prettification of Japanese colonialism. Mostly it fine-tunes the text. It even gives "Japanese rule," which is an absurd euphemism for Japanese occupation, a free pass. Predictably however, the DPP has threatened to wage open warfare on "three major battlefields." These include the Legislative Yuan, the streets, and six counties and muncipalities presided over by Pan Green officials. Su Tseng-chang even boasted that Taiwan has finally emerged from the authoritarian era of "education in the service of politics," and that Taiwan must never be allowed to go back. Ironically, his declaration amounted to a slap in the DPP's face. A dozen or so DPP Central Standing Committee members hand down an arbitrary order from on high. They order these counties and municipalities to adopt this or that textbook. How is this not "education in the service of politics?" How can a self-absorbed and lost DPP compel students to unconditionally obey their edicts?
The crux of the problem is the DPP cannot find its way out of its self-made Sinophobic maze. It can only invoke Orwellian euphemisms in history texts to blind itself to the ugly realities. It has embarked on this path of self-deception. It is forcing itself to continue down this Japanophile path of no return. In the end, any mention of Taiwan's victimization at the hands of Japanese colonialism must be obliterated. DPP officials forbd themselves to even utter the words "Japanese occupation." They forbid themselves any mention of a "colonial subject mentality." This reveals the pathetic extent of DPP ignorance. Look at East Asia. Look at the many countries that suffered bitterly under Japanese oppression. Now look at the DPP's uncritical Japanophilia. Is this not a bizarre take on world history?
民進黨從「本土化」躍向「擁殖民」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.07 02:13 am
高中歷史新課綱最近進行微調，主要目的，在修正原教科書中對日本殖民的過度美化。不料，此舉竟引起民進黨的強烈反彈，中常會更決議，要求綠營執政的六縣市集體抵制新課綱，沿用舊教本。
正逢選舉年，民進黨抓到任何可以發揮的題材即發動杯葛，製造政治對立，其動機可以理解。然而，民進黨這回宣示反對歷史課綱，能稱得上理直氣壯嗎？恐怕不然！
觀察這次高中歷史課綱的修改，除了將「中國」改稱「中國大陸」，因而碰觸到民進黨「反中情結」的敏感神經外；其他重大的修正，都集中於日本當年在亞洲的侵略與對台的殖民統治，包括：將「日本統治時期」改為更貼近史實的「日本殖民統治時期」，對日本徵用慰安婦增加了「強迫」二字，對日本建立「大東亞共榮圈」的野心加入「侵略」二字。這些用詞，放在東亞被侵略任何國家的教科書上，都是絕對客觀的描述；那麼，在台灣的教科書上，為何獨獨民進黨要禁止我們的下一代認識歷史真相？
試問：日本在台灣的五十年統治，難道不是「殖民」？難道沒有在各地進行武力鎮壓，並「掠奪」台灣的寶貴資源？日本徵用台、韓慰安婦，如果不是強迫，難道是這些婦女志願前往服務的嗎？日本發動戰爭，鐵蹄踏遍中、韓、台、港、星、馬、菲、緬、法屬印度支那，直抵荷屬東印度；這樣的行動若不是「侵略」，難道是「和平統一」大東亞，或各國甘願獻上自己的土地向它臣服？
民進黨當年揮舞「本土化」的大旗，來挑戰國民黨的「外來政權」，確有其戰略上的成功之處；因此強化了台灣的「本土意識」，亦自有其正面意義。但是，要把「本土意識」當成「反國民黨」、「反中」籌碼，進而達成追求「台獨」的目標，這是一回事；但為了要「反中」而肆意扭曲歷史，甚至要刻意「美化」日本在台灣的殖民，藉以醜化國民黨的治理，這又是另一回事。民進黨的問題，是把自己的主觀意願和外在的客觀事實混為一談，以為扭曲外在現實即可實現主觀意願，這是典型的鴕鳥作風。
再說，民進黨將「本土化」和「反中」畫上等號已成慣技，也就罷了；但因「反中」要進而與「擁日」畫上等號，這又是什麼巫毒邏輯？如此一來，民進黨還找得到自己本土政黨的原初立足點嗎？為了「反中」而「擁日」，是矇住自己的眼睛，更矇住下一代的眼睛；連一句「殖民」都不敢說，連一句「侵略」都不敢說，連「光復」一詞都不許用，連慰安婦「被迫」都不能說；那麼，民進黨宣稱的台灣「主體性」在哪裡？台灣的後殖民反省又要植基於什麼史觀？這也難怪，在東海釣魚台主權之爭時，民進黨除了高聲責難國民黨和中共，對於野心勃勃的安倍卻說不出一句譴責的話。
這次高中歷史課綱的修正，是在去除民進黨執政時代課綱對日本的過度美化，主要是文字上進行微調，連「日據」、「日治」之爭都已放過不提。孰料，民進黨卻揚言要在立法院、街頭和綠執政六縣市開啟「三大戰場」；蘇貞昌更稱，台灣好不容易走出「教育為政治服務」的威權年代，絕不容許台灣再走回頭路。這番說法，恰恰是民進黨自打嘴巴；試想，民進黨區區十幾人的中常會，就可以任意下令，指示某些縣市採用這樣或那樣的教科書，這不正是在強迫「教育為政治服務」嗎？然而，民進黨自己的耽溺和迷失，能夠強迫學生照單全收嗎？
問題的癥結是：民進黨在現實上走不出「反中」的迷宮，只能在歷史教科書上利用文字來自我麻醉；一旦走上這條自欺欺人之路，又逼得自己必須一路倒向「親日」的不歸路，最後，竟連台灣遭到日本「殖民」的歷史都要一起抹殺。這種不許說「日據」、不許談「殖民」的心態，才是民進黨最大的蒙昧與悲哀。放眼整個東亞，所有遭受過日本鐵蹄踐踏的國家，民進黨的媚日史觀真可謂絕無僅有了。
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
A Political Year: The Key is Ma Xi Meeting
A Political Year: The Key is Ma Xi Meeting
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 6, 2014
Summary: For Taiwan, this is a political year. It is a year in which political power and policy direction will be redefined. For the past eight years, cross-strait relations have become increasingly friendly. Signs of reform within the DPP have surfaced. This year is a rare opportunity to redefine cross-strait relations. But will the opportunity be lost? That depends on joint efforts on both sides. The key is a Ma Xi meeting.
Full text below:
This year is a political year. On the 11th of this month, Wang Yu-chi visited the Mainland. In May, the DPP will hold its party chairmanship election. At the end of the year, the government will hold the "seven in one elections." In the lead up to these elections, the most suspenseful event will be the Ma Xi meeting.
This string of political events points to the 2016 general election. The core issue, as always, remains cross-strait relations. Wang Yu-chi visited the Mainland. Will the two sides' cross-strait affairs directors address each other by their official titles? If they do, this may lead to a increased openness, both in rhetoric and in practice. This may pave the way for an end of year Ma Xi meeting. But if the "three taboos" prevail, the Ma Xi meeting may not happen. The DPP will hold its party chairmanship elections in May. The election campaign may be fought over cross-strait policy. It may affect the political climate during the "seven in one elections" and the 2016 general election. This of course pertains only to the Taiwan side. News relating to the Ma Xi meeting in October will determine the final impact of these events.
If a Ma Xi meeting can be held it will at the very least reduce the suffering and torment endured by the two sides over the past decade or two. Alas, the the likelihood of a Ma Xi meeting is fading. Many political issues will arise this year. They include the DPP chairmanship election and the "seven in one elections." All signs point to 2016, and a clash over the central government political authority and the nation's political path. Cross-strait policy has a major influence on the ROC's political path. Therefore a Ma Xi meeting will have a profound impact on everything above, and ultimately the 2016 general election and post-election cross strait relations.
If a Ma Xi meeting can be arranged, it will show that the two sides can accept "economic leaders" and "leaders from the two sides" as forms of address. It will show that significant progress has been made on the cross-strait rhetoric concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction. We can now look forward to some sort of "Peace Declaration." Perhaps this is the Xi Jinping policy team's way of tolerating and guiding Taiwan polices, instead of suppressing and stifling it. If so, it is good for both sides. Can a Ma Xi meeting lower the threshold for cross-strait relations? Can it do so in a manner acceptable to the public on Taiwan? If it can, it will compel the DPP to reform its cross-strait policy. It will positively impact the 2016 general election and cross-strait relations after the election. In other words, as long Ma and Xi set the tone for cross-strait policy, they can minimize the impact of the 2016 general election on cross-strait relations. Then no matter who is elected president, he or she will not be able to turn back the clock. He or she will be able to carry on the good work of the Ma Xi meeting.
Conversely, if the Ma Xi meeting fails to materialize, the Ma administration gesture will be interpreted as a failure, and a rejection by the Mainland. It will be seen as a lack of creativity and goodwill on the part of Beijing. It will deny the DPP a necessary stimulus for reform. If everything is postponed until after the 2016 general election, who knows what the consequences might be?
The end of year APEC meeting to be held at Beijing's Yanqi Lake is a prime opportunity for leaders from the two sides to meet. The two sides are irresolute and afraid to act. The real barriers are not external and objective, but internal and psychological. If these psychological barriers are not removed, we might endure a decade or two of trials and tribulation before any breakthrough. Even then, a breakthrough might be in doubt. What price would we be forced to pay? Conversely, convening a Ma Xi meeting could clear away these psychological barriers in one fell swoop. It could spare the two sides a decade or two of trials and tribulations.
The likelihood of another opportunity for a Ma Xi meeting is remote. This is a consensus shared by those in the know, on both sides of the issue. When Hong Kong was retroceded, everyone in the know knew that "one country, one system" was unacceptable. Beijing could never have persuaded the public in Hong Kong, the Mainland, and the rest of the world to accept it. Only Deng Xiaoping was able to shrug off subjective psychological barriers, and use "one country, two systems" to cut the Gordian Knot. Everyone knows that another opportunity for an historic Ma Xi meeting is unlikely. Such a meeting is the way to diminish a decade or two of cross-strait suffering. But do we have someone of the caliber of Deng Xiaoping, able to write history? Do we have someone not mired in dogma and hobbled by psychological barriers?
The Ma administration has labored for six long years. It now stands on the threshold of a Ma Xi meeting. If such a meeting fails to materialize, it will be an historical tragedy. The DPP has already announced that it "does not oppose a Ma Xi meeting." Clearly it realizes that such a meeting would have a major impact on the 2016 general election and future cross-strait relations. Therefore both the Blue and Green camps should attempt to make such a meeting a reality. Beijing in particular must not miss this unique opportunity. It must seize the moment to ride the wave. It would be doing more than giving Taiwan a chance. It would also be giving Beijing a chance to improve the cross-strait policy environment. During a Ma Xi meeting Beijing must accomodate Taipei. If it does not, it will merely hobble itself. If Deng Xiaoping were alive, he would not let this historic opportunity slip through his fingers.
For Taiwan, this is a political year. It is a year in which political power and policy direction will be redefined. For the past eight years, cross-strait relations have become increasingly friendly. Signs of reform within the DPP have surfaced. This year is a rare opportunity to redefine cross-strait relations. But will the opportunity be lost? That depends on joint efforts on both sides. The key is a Ma Xi meeting.
政治年：關鍵在有無馬習會
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.06 03:19 am
今年是政治年，本月十一日王郁琦訪問大陸，五月民進黨主席選舉，年底七合一選舉，選前的最大懸念則是有無馬習會。
這一連串政治節目，皆指向二○一六大選，而仍以兩岸關係為主軸。王郁琦登陸的觀察要點是，雙方的兩岸事務首長若互稱官銜，希望能引導出較開明的政治論述與實踐，並因而能促成年底的馬習會；但是，倘若真有所謂的「三個不能說」，此氛圍就可能預示馬習會將告落空。接著，五月民進黨黨主席選舉，兩岸政策可能成為競爭焦點，並將會影響七合一選舉的政治氛圍，且進而影響二○一六的大選。但以上這些皆是台灣單方面的政治節目，十月前後關於有無馬習會的確訊，將決定這些節目的最後效應。
馬習會若能舉行，至少可以減少兩岸雙方十年甚至二十年的磨難與折騰；但跡象顯示，馬習會成功的可能性已愈來愈低。在今年的政治課題裡，民進黨黨主席選舉及七合一選舉，皆將左右二○一六年的國家中樞權力歸屬及路線指向；而由於兩岸政策是影響台灣政策路線的主要元素，所以，有無馬習會，必會影響這些政治節目的如何進行，並深刻影響到這些政治節目的現實效應，最後更將影響二○一六大選及選後的兩岸關係。
如果馬習會告成，顯示雙方可能接受了「經濟領袖」及「兩岸領導人」的稱謂，這顯示雙方在「主權論述／治權論述」上已獲重大進展，並可望提出一個「和平宣言」之類的文告。倘係如此，或許可解讀為習近平團隊的對台政策將採「包容／引導」的方式，而非「壓迫／窒息」的手法，這對兩岸皆是好事。接著，如果馬習會能建構起受到台灣民意接受的兩岸關係新門檻，必可牽動民進黨在兩岸政策上的轉型，這對二○一六大選及選後的兩岸關係應當皆具正面的影響。也就是說，只要兩岸政策經由馬習會定了調，即可將兩岸關係受到二○一六大選的影響降低；屆時無論誰當選下屆總統，皆不致造成大局的倒退或翻覆，而皆能在馬習會的成果上繼續發展下去。
反之，倘若各方殷望的馬習會落了空，將會被視為馬政府的折衝失敗，亦會被視為北京的兩岸方略缺乏創意與善意，而民進黨也失去了轉型的重大指標。一切若皆要等到二○一六大選及選後再來收拾，那麼不測的變數就多了。
年底北京雁棲湖ＡＰＥＣ，是兩岸領導人會面的不二機遇；如今雙方仍見猶豫不決，與其說是由於現實上的障礙，不如說是心理上的障礙。倘若心障不除，或許要花十年、二十年的磨難來破解，卻還不知能否達成，及要付出多少代價；但是，只要回過頭來，逕以舉行馬習會的實際行動一舉破除心理障礙，或許就能省去兩岸十年甚至二十年的磨難與折騰。
馬習會的良機難再，這是任何對兩岸問題有真知灼見者的共同見解。當年香港回歸，任何有真知灼見者亦均知絕不可實行「一國一制」，否則將無以對香港人民、大陸人民及世界輿論；當時，唯有鄧小平能不困於主觀的心障，用「一國兩制」來回答了歷史的考卷。由此可見，即使人人皆知馬習會是良機難再的歷史機遇，亦是必可減少兩岸十年、二十年磨難的正確決策，但問題是：今日有沒有不困於教條與心障而能開創歷史的「鄧小平」？
對馬政府來說，六年的辛苦經營，現在站在距馬習會只差臨門一腳之地，若不成，將是歷史憾事。對民進黨言，則已放出「不反對馬習會」的說法，可見深知此會對二○一六與兩岸未來局勢皆有重大關係。因此，藍綠兩黨皆應當努力促成此事。至於北京，尤不應錯失此一「借題發揮／順水推舟」的不二機遇；因為，這不只是給台灣機會，更能為自己開出一個兩岸政策的新境。在馬習會上，北京若不容讓台灣，其實也是捆綁了自己。鄧小平倘在人間，應不會讓這個能減少幾十年兩岸磨難的良機在指縫流失。
今年是台灣的政治年，也是政治權力歸屬及政策路線指向再定位的一年。八年來積澱的兩岸友善條件，及民進黨內轉型的徵兆畢現，皆可證今年是重新設定兩岸關係的難得時會。但這個時會能否保全，須賴兩岸的共同努力，其關鍵則在有無馬習會。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 6, 2014
Summary: For Taiwan, this is a political year. It is a year in which political power and policy direction will be redefined. For the past eight years, cross-strait relations have become increasingly friendly. Signs of reform within the DPP have surfaced. This year is a rare opportunity to redefine cross-strait relations. But will the opportunity be lost? That depends on joint efforts on both sides. The key is a Ma Xi meeting.
Full text below:
This year is a political year. On the 11th of this month, Wang Yu-chi visited the Mainland. In May, the DPP will hold its party chairmanship election. At the end of the year, the government will hold the "seven in one elections." In the lead up to these elections, the most suspenseful event will be the Ma Xi meeting.
This string of political events points to the 2016 general election. The core issue, as always, remains cross-strait relations. Wang Yu-chi visited the Mainland. Will the two sides' cross-strait affairs directors address each other by their official titles? If they do, this may lead to a increased openness, both in rhetoric and in practice. This may pave the way for an end of year Ma Xi meeting. But if the "three taboos" prevail, the Ma Xi meeting may not happen. The DPP will hold its party chairmanship elections in May. The election campaign may be fought over cross-strait policy. It may affect the political climate during the "seven in one elections" and the 2016 general election. This of course pertains only to the Taiwan side. News relating to the Ma Xi meeting in October will determine the final impact of these events.
If a Ma Xi meeting can be held it will at the very least reduce the suffering and torment endured by the two sides over the past decade or two. Alas, the the likelihood of a Ma Xi meeting is fading. Many political issues will arise this year. They include the DPP chairmanship election and the "seven in one elections." All signs point to 2016, and a clash over the central government political authority and the nation's political path. Cross-strait policy has a major influence on the ROC's political path. Therefore a Ma Xi meeting will have a profound impact on everything above, and ultimately the 2016 general election and post-election cross strait relations.
If a Ma Xi meeting can be arranged, it will show that the two sides can accept "economic leaders" and "leaders from the two sides" as forms of address. It will show that significant progress has been made on the cross-strait rhetoric concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction. We can now look forward to some sort of "Peace Declaration." Perhaps this is the Xi Jinping policy team's way of tolerating and guiding Taiwan polices, instead of suppressing and stifling it. If so, it is good for both sides. Can a Ma Xi meeting lower the threshold for cross-strait relations? Can it do so in a manner acceptable to the public on Taiwan? If it can, it will compel the DPP to reform its cross-strait policy. It will positively impact the 2016 general election and cross-strait relations after the election. In other words, as long Ma and Xi set the tone for cross-strait policy, they can minimize the impact of the 2016 general election on cross-strait relations. Then no matter who is elected president, he or she will not be able to turn back the clock. He or she will be able to carry on the good work of the Ma Xi meeting.
Conversely, if the Ma Xi meeting fails to materialize, the Ma administration gesture will be interpreted as a failure, and a rejection by the Mainland. It will be seen as a lack of creativity and goodwill on the part of Beijing. It will deny the DPP a necessary stimulus for reform. If everything is postponed until after the 2016 general election, who knows what the consequences might be?
The end of year APEC meeting to be held at Beijing's Yanqi Lake is a prime opportunity for leaders from the two sides to meet. The two sides are irresolute and afraid to act. The real barriers are not external and objective, but internal and psychological. If these psychological barriers are not removed, we might endure a decade or two of trials and tribulation before any breakthrough. Even then, a breakthrough might be in doubt. What price would we be forced to pay? Conversely, convening a Ma Xi meeting could clear away these psychological barriers in one fell swoop. It could spare the two sides a decade or two of trials and tribulations.
The likelihood of another opportunity for a Ma Xi meeting is remote. This is a consensus shared by those in the know, on both sides of the issue. When Hong Kong was retroceded, everyone in the know knew that "one country, one system" was unacceptable. Beijing could never have persuaded the public in Hong Kong, the Mainland, and the rest of the world to accept it. Only Deng Xiaoping was able to shrug off subjective psychological barriers, and use "one country, two systems" to cut the Gordian Knot. Everyone knows that another opportunity for an historic Ma Xi meeting is unlikely. Such a meeting is the way to diminish a decade or two of cross-strait suffering. But do we have someone of the caliber of Deng Xiaoping, able to write history? Do we have someone not mired in dogma and hobbled by psychological barriers?
The Ma administration has labored for six long years. It now stands on the threshold of a Ma Xi meeting. If such a meeting fails to materialize, it will be an historical tragedy. The DPP has already announced that it "does not oppose a Ma Xi meeting." Clearly it realizes that such a meeting would have a major impact on the 2016 general election and future cross-strait relations. Therefore both the Blue and Green camps should attempt to make such a meeting a reality. Beijing in particular must not miss this unique opportunity. It must seize the moment to ride the wave. It would be doing more than giving Taiwan a chance. It would also be giving Beijing a chance to improve the cross-strait policy environment. During a Ma Xi meeting Beijing must accomodate Taipei. If it does not, it will merely hobble itself. If Deng Xiaoping were alive, he would not let this historic opportunity slip through his fingers.
For Taiwan, this is a political year. It is a year in which political power and policy direction will be redefined. For the past eight years, cross-strait relations have become increasingly friendly. Signs of reform within the DPP have surfaced. This year is a rare opportunity to redefine cross-strait relations. But will the opportunity be lost? That depends on joint efforts on both sides. The key is a Ma Xi meeting.
政治年：關鍵在有無馬習會
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.06 03:19 am
今年是政治年，本月十一日王郁琦訪問大陸，五月民進黨主席選舉，年底七合一選舉，選前的最大懸念則是有無馬習會。
這一連串政治節目，皆指向二○一六大選，而仍以兩岸關係為主軸。王郁琦登陸的觀察要點是，雙方的兩岸事務首長若互稱官銜，希望能引導出較開明的政治論述與實踐，並因而能促成年底的馬習會；但是，倘若真有所謂的「三個不能說」，此氛圍就可能預示馬習會將告落空。接著，五月民進黨黨主席選舉，兩岸政策可能成為競爭焦點，並將會影響七合一選舉的政治氛圍，且進而影響二○一六的大選。但以上這些皆是台灣單方面的政治節目，十月前後關於有無馬習會的確訊，將決定這些節目的最後效應。
馬習會若能舉行，至少可以減少兩岸雙方十年甚至二十年的磨難與折騰；但跡象顯示，馬習會成功的可能性已愈來愈低。在今年的政治課題裡，民進黨黨主席選舉及七合一選舉，皆將左右二○一六年的國家中樞權力歸屬及路線指向；而由於兩岸政策是影響台灣政策路線的主要元素，所以，有無馬習會，必會影響這些政治節目的如何進行，並深刻影響到這些政治節目的現實效應，最後更將影響二○一六大選及選後的兩岸關係。
如果馬習會告成，顯示雙方可能接受了「經濟領袖」及「兩岸領導人」的稱謂，這顯示雙方在「主權論述／治權論述」上已獲重大進展，並可望提出一個「和平宣言」之類的文告。倘係如此，或許可解讀為習近平團隊的對台政策將採「包容／引導」的方式，而非「壓迫／窒息」的手法，這對兩岸皆是好事。接著，如果馬習會能建構起受到台灣民意接受的兩岸關係新門檻，必可牽動民進黨在兩岸政策上的轉型，這對二○一六大選及選後的兩岸關係應當皆具正面的影響。也就是說，只要兩岸政策經由馬習會定了調，即可將兩岸關係受到二○一六大選的影響降低；屆時無論誰當選下屆總統，皆不致造成大局的倒退或翻覆，而皆能在馬習會的成果上繼續發展下去。
反之，倘若各方殷望的馬習會落了空，將會被視為馬政府的折衝失敗，亦會被視為北京的兩岸方略缺乏創意與善意，而民進黨也失去了轉型的重大指標。一切若皆要等到二○一六大選及選後再來收拾，那麼不測的變數就多了。
年底北京雁棲湖ＡＰＥＣ，是兩岸領導人會面的不二機遇；如今雙方仍見猶豫不決，與其說是由於現實上的障礙，不如說是心理上的障礙。倘若心障不除，或許要花十年、二十年的磨難來破解，卻還不知能否達成，及要付出多少代價；但是，只要回過頭來，逕以舉行馬習會的實際行動一舉破除心理障礙，或許就能省去兩岸十年甚至二十年的磨難與折騰。
馬習會的良機難再，這是任何對兩岸問題有真知灼見者的共同見解。當年香港回歸，任何有真知灼見者亦均知絕不可實行「一國一制」，否則將無以對香港人民、大陸人民及世界輿論；當時，唯有鄧小平能不困於主觀的心障，用「一國兩制」來回答了歷史的考卷。由此可見，即使人人皆知馬習會是良機難再的歷史機遇，亦是必可減少兩岸十年、二十年磨難的正確決策，但問題是：今日有沒有不困於教條與心障而能開創歷史的「鄧小平」？
對馬政府來說，六年的辛苦經營，現在站在距馬習會只差臨門一腳之地，若不成，將是歷史憾事。對民進黨言，則已放出「不反對馬習會」的說法，可見深知此會對二○一六與兩岸未來局勢皆有重大關係。因此，藍綠兩黨皆應當努力促成此事。至於北京，尤不應錯失此一「借題發揮／順水推舟」的不二機遇；因為，這不只是給台灣機會，更能為自己開出一個兩岸政策的新境。在馬習會上，北京若不容讓台灣，其實也是捆綁了自己。鄧小平倘在人間，應不會讓這個能減少幾十年兩岸磨難的良機在指縫流失。
今年是台灣的政治年，也是政治權力歸屬及政策路線指向再定位的一年。八年來積澱的兩岸友善條件，及民進黨內轉型的徵兆畢現，皆可證今年是重新設定兩岸關係的難得時會。但這個時會能否保全，須賴兩岸的共同努力，其關鍵則在有無馬習會。
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Establish Sovereign Funds: Promote Infrastructure Projects
Establish Sovereign Funds: Promote Infrastructure Projects
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 5, 2014
Summary: Taiwan's economy is suffocating. In order to find a breakthrough, the Government must act. It must use its foreign exchange reserves to establish sovereign wealth funds. Raise funds to promote public works, and provide affordable housing for young people. This is a viable strategy. All it takes is the will. As long as politicians are determined and the legislature can be persuaded, they can be swiftly implemented. Taiwan's economy can then be revived.
Full text below:
Taiwan's economy is suffocating. In order to find a breakthrough, the Government must act. It must use its foreign exchange reserves to establish sovereign wealth funds. Raise funds to promote public works, and provide affordable housing for young people. This is a viable strategy.
Economic growth can be promoted in four ways: consumption, investments, net exports, and government spending. Currently all four are in limbo. Salaries have not risen in over a decade. Private sector consumption is merely holding the line. It cannot increase growth. Recent investment remains bleak as a result of the world economic outlook. It has barely increased. It has occasionally experienced negative growth. Exports have been hurt following the 2008 financial crisis and the European debt crisis. Effective demand in Europe and America has been reduced. Economic growth has been unsatisfactory. Government spending has been affected by an emphasis on social welfare and a reluctance to increase the budget deficit. As a result, CEPD spending has been reduced. Investments in government and public utilities have barely increased.
Any economy that fails to grow becomes stagnant. New job opportunities are limited. One might have a job, but not a decent salary. Young people have no hope. They are forced to seek employment abroad. Older people tied to the land fear for their futures. The odds are against them. They are afraid to spend. This leads to a vicious downward economic spiral. Japan's "lost two decades" from 1990 onwards is the best example .
Reviving a stifled economy requires policies that restore a virtuous economic cycle. It requires using public works to stimulate economic growth, creating a multiplier effect. This is something the government can control.
What kind of public works best stimulate economic growth? The experience of nations around the world tells us that the most cost-effective means are the construction of infrastructure and transportation facilities. President Ma's "Golden Decade, National Vision" provided a comprehensive list. It included improvements to water works, electrical power, and industrial infrastructure. These can transform Taiwan into a convenient South East Asian sea and air transportation hub, and promote swifter transportation. They will create a comprehensive and convenient environment and digital convergence. These are public infrastructure works worth promoting. Several projects are top priority. They include the traffic bottleneck sections of the Huadong Line railway. These require tracks running in both directions, across the board rail electrification, South Link Line electrification, Suhua Highway No. 9 mountain road improvements, the West Coast Expressway road network. These form a third north south expressway. The Ten major infrasture projects include the New Taipei Twin Towers, the Songshan Airport Development Project, the Taipei Qui Yeh Yuan Building, the Taipei City Green Hill TWTC Exhibition Hall Development, the Kaohsiung City unified transportation system, the second Harbor Bridge and Harbor Tunnel, the New Taipei MRT third ring, third line MRT, the Tamkang Bridge, the Taichung Metropolitan Area MRT railway viaduct, the BRT public transport network, the Tainan City underground railway, and the Anping Harbor Bridge. These are also worthwhile projects that will generate benefits. If we have the financial resources, these projects stimulate economic growth on Taiwan immediately.
But even the cleverest housewife cannot prepare a meal without rice. Current annual revenue is limited. The budget is out of balance. Financial resources are worrisome. Different parties have different proposals to cut expenditures. But the government can set up sovereign wealth funds. This would help fill the nation's coffers.
Our government has yet to establish sovereign wealth funds. But in recent years, its foreign exchange reserves have reached 400 billion USD. The Central Bank has in fact conducted sovereign fund operations. As everyone knows, they have yielded a profit of 200 billion NTD. Most of this is the result of the leadership and hard work of the President of the Central Bank and his colleagues. The rest is the result of outsourcing operations.
Outsiders have little understanding of Central Bank operations. But in 2012 recognition was given to exemplary public servants. Forex Trade Chairman Chang Shou-fu received unprecedent public attention. He said CEO Peng authorized 500 million USD in capital to his operations team. In 2012 alone, they earned 28 million USD, about 800 million NTD. This amounted to a 5.6% interest rate. Observers consider annual earnings of over 200 billion NTD impressive. A total of 400 billion USD earned 12 trillion NTD, and a profit of 227.3 billion NTD in 2013, at a return rate of 1.894%.
The reason was, Central Bank operations ae conservative. Consider the Central Bank's income statement. Its main income is interest. These target U.S. Treasury AAA Grade fixed income assets. If sovereign funds are established, specialized investment operations begun, and certain risks assumed, one can expect a higher rate of return. The outsourcing of four major domestic fund operations in the wake of the financial tsunami should be able to beat market. Therefore sovereign funds can contribute to the nation's coffers.
CEO Peng has helped the government earn nearly 3 trillion NTD. This has reduced the shortfall in revenue. But more aggressive sovereign fund strategies and emulation of hedge funds may offer greater benefits. This is now the job of the Central Bank. It should help the government establish sovereign funds. The CEO has a wealth of experience. He can draw up plans for effective operations. He can consider how to revive a stifled financial industry, and give Taiwan's economy a shot in the arm.
The government should provide public works funding and establish sovereign funds. All it takes is the will. As long as politicians are determined and the legislature can be persuaded, they can be swiftly implemented. Taiwan's economy can then be revived.
社論－成立主權基金 推動大建設
2014-02-05 01:24
中國時報
本報訊
突破台灣「悶經濟」，政府該有所作為。活用外匯存底成立主權基金，籌措財源推動公共建設，讓年輕人買得起住宅，是可行策略。
經濟成長可以從四大面向推動：消費、投資、淨出口及政府支出，當前這四個面向都非常沉悶。首先，十多年來因為薪水不漲，民間消費只能維持基本盤，增加有限。投資因為近年世界經濟前景未明，不但少有增加，有時還呈現負成長。出口在2008年後，因為金融海嘯、歐債危機，歐美有效需求遽減，表現也不如人意。政府支出方面，因為政府格外注重社福卻堅持量入，不願擴大財政赤字，因而縮減經建支出，讓投資項目中的政府及公營事業支出幾乎沒有成長。
經濟不成長就變悶，新創的工作機會有限，勉強有工作卻沒有好的報酬，年輕人沒有希望，被逼得往外發展；年紀較大、有土地附著性的人害怕未來沒有機會，不敢消費，經濟螺旋向下，產生惡性循環。日本從1990年起，失落的20年，就是最好的例證。
改變「悶經濟」窘狀，應採取能讓經濟產生正向循環的政策，以公共建設刺激經濟成長，產生乘數效果，是政府可以掌控的方向。
什麼樣的公共建設，最可以刺激經濟成長？世界各國的經驗，做有效益的基礎建設及交通設施是最好的。馬總統「黃金十年，國家願景」列出的全面建設，其中的完善水、電及各項產業發展所需之基礎建設，打造台灣成為東亞海空樞紐及推動便捷交通環境、營造全面數位匯流環境的便捷生活，都是值得推動的公共建設。交通篇中的花東線鐵路瓶頸路段雙軌化暨全線電氣化、南迴線電氣化、臺9線蘇花公路山區路段改善、西濱快速路網，形成第三條縱貫南北快速公路，是該做的重中之重。又如台北新十大建設其中的雙子星、松山機場開發案、台北秋葉原、台北城市綠丘（世貿二館開發）；高雄港市一體交通運輸系統、第二港口跨港橋及過港隧道。新北市三環三線的捷運交通，淡江大橋；台中市的都會區鐵路高架捷運化、BRT的公共運輸路網。台南市鐵路地下化、安平港大橋。這些也都是非常值得做，可以產生效益的項目。因此只要有財源，這些建設立即可以拉動台灣的經濟成長。
可是巧婦不能無米之炊。在目前歲入有限，財政收支不平的情況下，財源問題特別值得關切。各界已有多項開源節流的建議，但我們特別指出，政府可以成立主權基金，帶來更好的盈餘挹注國庫。
我國雖未成立主權基金，但近年外匯存底達4000多億美元，央行實際上進行操盤行主權基金之實。眾所周知，獲利繳庫年貢獻2000多億新台幣。這大部分是央行同仁在彭總裁帶領下嘔心瀝血之作，小部份是委外操作成果。
央行操盤實況，外界難以得知。但2012年度模範公務人員表揚讓外匯首席交易員張壽福首度曝光。他表示，彭總裁授權5億美元「本金」給他的操作小組，光在2012年獲利即達2,800萬美元（約新台幣8億元），算下來獲利率約5.6％。外界咸認為，年貢獻2000多億新台幣非常了不起，以整體4000多億美元換算成台幣12兆的資產，2012年創造了2273億新台幣的獲利，報酬率約1.894％。
究其原因，央行的操作必定以穩健保守為原則。從央行的損益表來看，最主要的收入是利息收入，投資對象應該以美國國債、3A級的固定收益資產為主。如果成立主權基金，專業化的投資操作，忍受一定的風險，當可以有更高的收益率。國內四大基金的委外操作，在海嘯過後，績效基本上可以打敗大盤。因此主權基金應該有更大的效益來貢獻國庫。
彭總裁已經幫政府賺了近3兆台幣繳庫，填補稅收的不足。但主權基金更積極的策略，仿效避險基金，可以為國家創造更大的受益。因此央行現在的任務，應是幫忙政府成立主權基金，以總裁豐富的經驗，建立未來基金的運作規畫及績效評估，也思考如何拉抬台灣沉悶的金融業，為台灣經濟注入強心針。
政府公共建設支出及主權基金的建立，應是一念之間，只要為政者想通，說服立法院，就可以迅速的執行。台灣的悶經濟就可以解套。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 5, 2014
Summary: Taiwan's economy is suffocating. In order to find a breakthrough, the Government must act. It must use its foreign exchange reserves to establish sovereign wealth funds. Raise funds to promote public works, and provide affordable housing for young people. This is a viable strategy. All it takes is the will. As long as politicians are determined and the legislature can be persuaded, they can be swiftly implemented. Taiwan's economy can then be revived.
Full text below:
Taiwan's economy is suffocating. In order to find a breakthrough, the Government must act. It must use its foreign exchange reserves to establish sovereign wealth funds. Raise funds to promote public works, and provide affordable housing for young people. This is a viable strategy.
Economic growth can be promoted in four ways: consumption, investments, net exports, and government spending. Currently all four are in limbo. Salaries have not risen in over a decade. Private sector consumption is merely holding the line. It cannot increase growth. Recent investment remains bleak as a result of the world economic outlook. It has barely increased. It has occasionally experienced negative growth. Exports have been hurt following the 2008 financial crisis and the European debt crisis. Effective demand in Europe and America has been reduced. Economic growth has been unsatisfactory. Government spending has been affected by an emphasis on social welfare and a reluctance to increase the budget deficit. As a result, CEPD spending has been reduced. Investments in government and public utilities have barely increased.
Any economy that fails to grow becomes stagnant. New job opportunities are limited. One might have a job, but not a decent salary. Young people have no hope. They are forced to seek employment abroad. Older people tied to the land fear for their futures. The odds are against them. They are afraid to spend. This leads to a vicious downward economic spiral. Japan's "lost two decades" from 1990 onwards is the best example .
Reviving a stifled economy requires policies that restore a virtuous economic cycle. It requires using public works to stimulate economic growth, creating a multiplier effect. This is something the government can control.
What kind of public works best stimulate economic growth? The experience of nations around the world tells us that the most cost-effective means are the construction of infrastructure and transportation facilities. President Ma's "Golden Decade, National Vision" provided a comprehensive list. It included improvements to water works, electrical power, and industrial infrastructure. These can transform Taiwan into a convenient South East Asian sea and air transportation hub, and promote swifter transportation. They will create a comprehensive and convenient environment and digital convergence. These are public infrastructure works worth promoting. Several projects are top priority. They include the traffic bottleneck sections of the Huadong Line railway. These require tracks running in both directions, across the board rail electrification, South Link Line electrification, Suhua Highway No. 9 mountain road improvements, the West Coast Expressway road network. These form a third north south expressway. The Ten major infrasture projects include the New Taipei Twin Towers, the Songshan Airport Development Project, the Taipei Qui Yeh Yuan Building, the Taipei City Green Hill TWTC Exhibition Hall Development, the Kaohsiung City unified transportation system, the second Harbor Bridge and Harbor Tunnel, the New Taipei MRT third ring, third line MRT, the Tamkang Bridge, the Taichung Metropolitan Area MRT railway viaduct, the BRT public transport network, the Tainan City underground railway, and the Anping Harbor Bridge. These are also worthwhile projects that will generate benefits. If we have the financial resources, these projects stimulate economic growth on Taiwan immediately.
But even the cleverest housewife cannot prepare a meal without rice. Current annual revenue is limited. The budget is out of balance. Financial resources are worrisome. Different parties have different proposals to cut expenditures. But the government can set up sovereign wealth funds. This would help fill the nation's coffers.
Our government has yet to establish sovereign wealth funds. But in recent years, its foreign exchange reserves have reached 400 billion USD. The Central Bank has in fact conducted sovereign fund operations. As everyone knows, they have yielded a profit of 200 billion NTD. Most of this is the result of the leadership and hard work of the President of the Central Bank and his colleagues. The rest is the result of outsourcing operations.
Outsiders have little understanding of Central Bank operations. But in 2012 recognition was given to exemplary public servants. Forex Trade Chairman Chang Shou-fu received unprecedent public attention. He said CEO Peng authorized 500 million USD in capital to his operations team. In 2012 alone, they earned 28 million USD, about 800 million NTD. This amounted to a 5.6% interest rate. Observers consider annual earnings of over 200 billion NTD impressive. A total of 400 billion USD earned 12 trillion NTD, and a profit of 227.3 billion NTD in 2013, at a return rate of 1.894%.
The reason was, Central Bank operations ae conservative. Consider the Central Bank's income statement. Its main income is interest. These target U.S. Treasury AAA Grade fixed income assets. If sovereign funds are established, specialized investment operations begun, and certain risks assumed, one can expect a higher rate of return. The outsourcing of four major domestic fund operations in the wake of the financial tsunami should be able to beat market. Therefore sovereign funds can contribute to the nation's coffers.
CEO Peng has helped the government earn nearly 3 trillion NTD. This has reduced the shortfall in revenue. But more aggressive sovereign fund strategies and emulation of hedge funds may offer greater benefits. This is now the job of the Central Bank. It should help the government establish sovereign funds. The CEO has a wealth of experience. He can draw up plans for effective operations. He can consider how to revive a stifled financial industry, and give Taiwan's economy a shot in the arm.
The government should provide public works funding and establish sovereign funds. All it takes is the will. As long as politicians are determined and the legislature can be persuaded, they can be swiftly implemented. Taiwan's economy can then be revived.
社論－成立主權基金 推動大建設
2014-02-05 01:24
中國時報
本報訊
突破台灣「悶經濟」，政府該有所作為。活用外匯存底成立主權基金，籌措財源推動公共建設，讓年輕人買得起住宅，是可行策略。
經濟成長可以從四大面向推動：消費、投資、淨出口及政府支出，當前這四個面向都非常沉悶。首先，十多年來因為薪水不漲，民間消費只能維持基本盤，增加有限。投資因為近年世界經濟前景未明，不但少有增加，有時還呈現負成長。出口在2008年後，因為金融海嘯、歐債危機，歐美有效需求遽減，表現也不如人意。政府支出方面，因為政府格外注重社福卻堅持量入，不願擴大財政赤字，因而縮減經建支出，讓投資項目中的政府及公營事業支出幾乎沒有成長。
經濟不成長就變悶，新創的工作機會有限，勉強有工作卻沒有好的報酬，年輕人沒有希望，被逼得往外發展；年紀較大、有土地附著性的人害怕未來沒有機會，不敢消費，經濟螺旋向下，產生惡性循環。日本從1990年起，失落的20年，就是最好的例證。
改變「悶經濟」窘狀，應採取能讓經濟產生正向循環的政策，以公共建設刺激經濟成長，產生乘數效果，是政府可以掌控的方向。
什麼樣的公共建設，最可以刺激經濟成長？世界各國的經驗，做有效益的基礎建設及交通設施是最好的。馬總統「黃金十年，國家願景」列出的全面建設，其中的完善水、電及各項產業發展所需之基礎建設，打造台灣成為東亞海空樞紐及推動便捷交通環境、營造全面數位匯流環境的便捷生活，都是值得推動的公共建設。交通篇中的花東線鐵路瓶頸路段雙軌化暨全線電氣化、南迴線電氣化、臺9線蘇花公路山區路段改善、西濱快速路網，形成第三條縱貫南北快速公路，是該做的重中之重。又如台北新十大建設其中的雙子星、松山機場開發案、台北秋葉原、台北城市綠丘（世貿二館開發）；高雄港市一體交通運輸系統、第二港口跨港橋及過港隧道。新北市三環三線的捷運交通，淡江大橋；台中市的都會區鐵路高架捷運化、BRT的公共運輸路網。台南市鐵路地下化、安平港大橋。這些也都是非常值得做，可以產生效益的項目。因此只要有財源，這些建設立即可以拉動台灣的經濟成長。
可是巧婦不能無米之炊。在目前歲入有限，財政收支不平的情況下，財源問題特別值得關切。各界已有多項開源節流的建議，但我們特別指出，政府可以成立主權基金，帶來更好的盈餘挹注國庫。
我國雖未成立主權基金，但近年外匯存底達4000多億美元，央行實際上進行操盤行主權基金之實。眾所周知，獲利繳庫年貢獻2000多億新台幣。這大部分是央行同仁在彭總裁帶領下嘔心瀝血之作，小部份是委外操作成果。
央行操盤實況，外界難以得知。但2012年度模範公務人員表揚讓外匯首席交易員張壽福首度曝光。他表示，彭總裁授權5億美元「本金」給他的操作小組，光在2012年獲利即達2,800萬美元（約新台幣8億元），算下來獲利率約5.6％。外界咸認為，年貢獻2000多億新台幣非常了不起，以整體4000多億美元換算成台幣12兆的資產，2012年創造了2273億新台幣的獲利，報酬率約1.894％。
究其原因，央行的操作必定以穩健保守為原則。從央行的損益表來看，最主要的收入是利息收入，投資對象應該以美國國債、3A級的固定收益資產為主。如果成立主權基金，專業化的投資操作，忍受一定的風險，當可以有更高的收益率。國內四大基金的委外操作，在海嘯過後，績效基本上可以打敗大盤。因此主權基金應該有更大的效益來貢獻國庫。
彭總裁已經幫政府賺了近3兆台幣繳庫，填補稅收的不足。但主權基金更積極的策略，仿效避險基金，可以為國家創造更大的受益。因此央行現在的任務，應是幫忙政府成立主權基金，以總裁豐富的經驗，建立未來基金的運作規畫及績效評估，也思考如何拉抬台灣沉悶的金融業，為台灣經濟注入強心針。
政府公共建設支出及主權基金的建立，應是一念之間，只要為政者想通，說服立法院，就可以迅速的執行。台灣的悶經濟就可以解套。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)